The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Well, gentlemen, we still have the last questions left over from the Jewish Sephiroth tree. In this Sephiroth tree, the Jews of antiquity actually enclosed their highest wisdom. And one could say: they enclosed in it the wisdom of the relationship between man and the world. We have often emphasized that the human being does not only consist of the visible parts that can be seen with the eye, but that the human being also consists of invisible, supersensible members. We have called these supersensible members the etheric body, the astral body, the ego or the ego organization. Now, all these things were known in ancient times, not in the way we have today, but people knew about them instinctively. This ancient knowledge has been completely lost. And today we believe that something like this Jewish Tree of Life, the Sephiroth Tree, is actually a fantasy. But it is not.

Now let us try to understand what the ancient Jews actually meant by this Sephiroth tree. They thought of it like this: Man stands there in the world, but the forces of the world act on him from all sides. If you look at man as he stands in the world (it is drawn), we can imagine him schematically drawn. This is how we imagine a material human being standing in the world. The ancient Jews imagined that the forces of the world were acting on him from all sides. Here I draw an arrow that goes into the heart: Thus the forces of the world act on man; here below the power of the earth,

Now the Jews have said: First of all, three forces act on the human head – I have indicated these in the drawing with these arrows: 1, 2, 3 – three forces on the human center, on the chest, on breathing and blood circulation mainly (arrows 4, 5, 6 of the drawing). Then three more forces act on the limbs of the human being (arrows 7, 8, 9), and a tenth force, which acts on the human being from the earth (arrow 10, from below). So ten forces, the ancient Jews imagined, act on the human being from the outside.

Let us first consider the three forces that come, so to speak, from the farthest parts of the universe and act on the human head, actually making the human head round, like an image of the whole round universe. These three forces, 1, 2, 3, are the noblest; they come, so to speak, if you want to use a later expression, with a Greek expression, for example, from the highest heavens. They shape the human head by making it a round image of the whole round universe.

Now, however, we must develop a concept at the same time, which could disturb you if I simply tell you. You see, in these ten concepts that the Jews have placed at the pinnacle of their wisdom, the first one at the top (1) has been terribly misused; for later, those people who succeeded in seizing power dragged the symbols of that power and the words for that power down into the outer realm of power. And so certain people who have appropriated the power of the nations and transferred it to their descendants have appropriated what is called a crown. In ancient times, a crown was a word for the highest spiritual gift that could be bestowed on a person. And the crown could only be worn by someone who, as I have explained to you, had gone through initiation, that is, someone who had attained the highest wisdom. It was a sign of the highest wisdom. I have already explained to you how the orders originally all meant something, but how they were later created out of vanity and no longer meant anything. In particular, however, we must consider this in relation to the term 'crown'. For the ancients, the crown was the epitome of all that superhumanity from the spiritual world has to bestow upon humanity. No wonder that the kings placed the crown on their heads. They were, as you know, not always wise and did not always have the highest gifts of heaven united in them, but they placed the sign on their heads. And when something like this is spoken according to ancient customs, it must not be confused with what has become of it through misuse. So the highest, the highest gifts of the world, the highest gifts of the spirit, which can descend upon man, which he can unite with his head when he knows much, that was called Kether, the crown, in ancient Judaism. Now, you see, that was the highest. That was what spiritually formed the head from the universe.

And then this human head still needed two other forces. These two other forces came to it from the right and from the left. It was thought: the highest comes down from above; from the right and left come the two other forces, the two world forces, which are spread throughout the universe. Now, the one that goes in through the right ear was called Chokmah = wisdom. Today, if we wanted to translate the word, we would say: wisdom. And on the other side, from the world, came in: Binah. Today we would say: intelligence (2 and 3 of the drawing). The ancient Jews distinguished between wisdom and intelligence. Today, every person who is intelligent is also considered to be wise. But that is not the case. One can be intelligent and think the greatest stupidity. The greatest stupidities are thought up very intelligently. In particular, when one looks at much of today's science, one has to say that this science is actually intelligent in all fields, but it is certainly not wise. The ancient Jews distinguished Chokmah and Binah, the ancient wisdom, from the ancient intelligence at an early stage. So the human head, everything that actually belongs to the sensory system in the human being, and also the nerves that are spread out in the sensory system, all this was designated by the three terms Kether, Chokmah, Binah - crown, wisdom, intelligence.

Thus, according to the view of the ancient Jews, the human head is constructed from the universe. There was therefore a strong awareness - otherwise such a doctrine would not have been developed - that man is a member of the whole universe. We can ask, for example, about the human body: What about the liver? Well, the liver gets its veins from the blood circulation; it gets its strength from the human environment. The ancient Jews said: Man receives the forces from the environment, which then, first in the mother's womb and later, cause his head to develop.

Now, there are three other forces (4, 5, 6 in the drawing); these have more of an effect on the middle person, on the person in whom the heart is, in whom the lungs are. So they have an effect on the middle person; they come down less from above, they live more in the environment. They live in the sunshine that moves around on the earth, they live in wind and weather. The three forces that the ancient Jews mentioned come into consideration here: chesed, geburah, tiphereth. If we want to express this in today's terms, we could say: chesed = freedom; geburah = strength; tiphereth = beauty.

Let us start here with the middle power, with Geburah. I have told you that I want to draw the arrow in such a way that it goes into the heart! The power that man has, this heartiness, soul power and physical power at the same time, is indicated by the human heart. This is how the Jews imagined it: When the breath enters a person, when the breath enters the heart, not only the physical breathing forces enter from the outside, but also the spiritual power, Geburah, which is connected with the breath. We would therefore say, if we wanted to express it more precisely: the life force, the force through which he can also do something = Geburah. But on the one side of Geburah is what was called Chesed, human freedom. And on the other side is Tiphereth, beauty. Man is indeed the most beautiful thing on earth in his form! The old Jew imagined: “When I hear the heartbeat, I hear the life force that comes into man. When I stretch out my right hand, I feel that I am a free man; when the muscles stretch, the power of freedom comes. The left hand, which moves more gently and can grasp more gently, brings what a person does in beauty.

So these three forces: Chesed = freedom, Geburah = vitality, Tiphereth = beauty, correspond to that in man which is connected with breathing and blood circulation, with everything that is in motion and always repeats itself. The movement of sleeping, the change between day and night, also belongs to this. This also belongs to the movement; man also belongs to this.

But then, humans are also beings that can change their position in space, that can walk around, that do not have to stay in one place like plants. The animal can also walk around. Man has this in common with the animal. The animal has no Chokmah, no Tiphereth, nor Chesed, but it does have Geburah = life force. And the three that I have described, man has in common with the animal only in that he has the others.

This, that one can go around, that one is not bound to one place, the Jews called: Netsah, and that means that one overcomes the firmness of the earth, that one moves (arrow 7 of the drawing). Netsah is overcoming. Now, the one that has more effect on the center of the human being, where his center of gravity is - it is interesting, you know: that is the point, which is located here; it is slightly higher in the waking state and lowers in the sleeping state, which also testifies that there is something outside when we are sleeping - that which works in the center of the body, which also brings about reproduction in humans, which is therefore connected with sexuality, the ancient Jews called Hod. Today we would describe it with a word that would express something like compassion. You see, the expressions are already becoming more human. So Netsah refers to the outer movement - we go out into space - and Hod refers to the inner feeling, the inner movement, the inner compassion with the outer world, that is all Hod (arrow 8). Then under 9: Jesod; this is now the one on which the human being actually stands, the foundation. The human being thus feels bound to the earth; the fact that he can stand on the earth is the foundation, is Jesod. That he has such a foundation also comes from the forces that approach him from outside.

And then the forces of the earth itself work on him (Arrow 10), not only the surrounding forces, but the forces of the earth itself work on him. This was then called Malkuth. We would translate it today as: the field in which the human being works, the earthly outside world; Malkuth - the field. It is difficult to find the right expression for this Malkuth. One could say: realm, field; but all things have actually been misused, and today's names no longer describe what the old Jew felt: that the earth actually has an effect on him.

We need only imagine that we have the center of the human being here; a thigh bone begins on each side of the human being – this goes up to the knee, where the kneecaps would be. All these forces also act on these bones; but the fact that it is actually pierced like this, that it is actually a tube, is due to the penetration of the earthly forces. So everything where the earthly forces penetrate, that is what the old Jew called Malkuth, the field.

So you see, you have to get close to people if you want to talk about this Sephiroth tree! The Jews called the ten Sephiroth together: Kether, Chokmah, Binah, Chesed, Geburah, Tiphereth, Netsah, Hod, Jesod, Malkuth. These ten forces are what actually connects man with the higher, with the spiritual world. Only the tenth power, Malkuth, is sunk into the earth. So basically, this is the physical human being (pointing to the drawing), and the spiritual human being surrounds this physical human being, first as the earth forces below, but then as the forces that are already closer to the earth, but still work in from the surroundings: Netsah, Hod, Jesod. So all of this belongs spiritually to man, as these forces take effect. Then there are the forces that affect his blood circulation and breathing: Chesed, Geburah, Tiphereth. And then the noblest forces that affect man, that affect his brain system: Kether, Chokmah, Binah. So that the Jews actually thought of man as connected with the world on all sides, as I have colorfully depicted for you here. Man is indeed such that he also contains a supersensible element within him. And they imagined this supersensible element in this way.

But now we can raise the question: What else did the Jews actually want to achieve with the ten sephirot, that they used to explain man's relationship to the world? Every Jewish pupil had to learn the ten sephirot, but not just so that he could list them; you would have a completely false idea if you thought that the teaching in the old Jewish schools was such that the main thing I have drawn on the board was the most striking thing. If one only wants to answer the question, “What is the Sephiroth tree?” one could quickly have finished it; you would have known it in a flash. People today are satisfied with asking, “What is the Sephiroth tree?” This and that is in it, what I have told you now. But that is not in relation to man! Instead, they just give you ten words and all kinds of fanciful explanations for them! But in relation to the human being, what I have told you is the right thing. But that was not the end of it in schools; rather, the Jewish pupil who was to learn science in the sense of the time had to learn much more about it.

Just imagine, gentlemen, you had only learned what the alphabet is and you would know if someone asked you: What is A, B, C, D and so on? - so the letters A, B, C, D and so on. You would have been able to list the twenty-two or twenty-three letters in a row. You wouldn't be able to do much with that! If any man could only enumerate the twenty-three letters, he could not do much with them, could he? But an ancient Jew who could only say: Kether, Chokmah, Binah, Chesed, Geburah, Tiphereth, Netsah, Hod, Jesod, Malkuth, so these ten Sephiroth could have enumerated, would have been regarded just the same. Anyone who had only answered in this way would have seemed to the Jews like someone who could say: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and so on. You have to learn more than just the alphabet, don't you; you have to learn to use the alphabet to read, you have to learn how to use the letters to read. Now, gentlemen, just think about how few letters there are and how much you have already read in your life! You just have to consider that. Take any book, take, I mean, for example, Karl Marx's “Capital” and look at it when you have the book in front of you: there is nothing on the pages but the twenty-two letters, nothing else! There are only the letters in it in the book. But what is inside is a lot, and it is all produced by the fact that the twenty-two letters are jumbled up: sometimes the A is before the B, sometimes before the M, sometimes the M before the A, the L before the I and so on, and that's how the whole complicated thing in the book comes about. If someone only knows the alphabet, he picks up the book and perhaps says: I understand everything in the book: there is A, B, C, only arranged differently; I know everything in the book. But he cannot read everything that is really written there inwardly, according to the meaning. You see, one must learn to read with what the letters are; one must really be able to jumble the letters in one's head and mind in such a way that meaning arises from them. And so the ancient Jews had to learn the ten sephiroth; for them, they were letters. You will say: Yes, they are words. But in the beginning, letters were also designated by words! This was only lost by the people when the letters came to Europe, in Greece.

It was not until the transition from Greek to Roman culture that something very significant happened. The Greeks called their A not A, but Alpha, and Alpha actually means: the spiritual man; and they called their B not B, but Beta, that is something like a house. And so every letter had a name. And the Greek could not have imagined that the letter is something else than what is called by a name. It was only when the transition from Greek culture to Roman culture took place that people no longer said Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and so on. They no longer referred to the letters by their names, where each name indicated what such a letter meant. Instead, they said: A, B, C, D and so on, and the whole thing became abstract. Just as Greek culture was dying out and merging with Roman culture, the great cultural diarrhea began in Europe. In the midst of this huge diarrhea, the spiritual aspect of the path from Greek to Roman culture was lost.

And you see, Judaism was particularly great then. When they wrote down their Aleph, their first letter, they meant the human being. Aleph is that. They knew: wherever they placed this letter for the sensual world, what they expressed with this letter must apply to the human being. And so each letter that represented the expressions of the material world also had a name. And the names: Kether, Chokmah, Binah, Chesed, Geburah, Tiphereth, Netsah, Hod, Jesod, Malkuth, were the names for the spiritual letters, for that which one had to learn in order to read in the spiritual world. And so the Jews had one alphabet: Aleph, Beth, Gimel and so on - an alphabet with which they grasped the outer world, the physical world. But they also had the other alphabet, where they had only ten letters, ten Sephiroth, and with that they grasped the spiritual world.

You see, gentlemen, when I list the names for you, Kether, Chokmah, Binah, Chesed and so on, well, that's like A, B, C, D and so on. But then such an old Jew would have known how to say, as we jumble the letters, Kether, Chesed, Binah. And if he had said: Kether, Chesed, Binah, if he had rolled the dice like that, he would have said: In the spiritual world, the highest spiritual power brings about intelligence through freedom. - And with that he would have designated the higher beings who do not have a physical body, in whom the highest power of heaven brings about intelligence through freedom.

Or he would have said: Chokmah, Geburah, Malkuth - that would have meant: Through wisdom, the spirits bring forth the life force through which they work on earth. - He knew how to jumble all these things together like we jumble letters. So these disciples of the ancient Jews understood spiritual science in their own way through these ten spiritual letters. This tree, the Sephiroth tree, was therefore the same for them as the tree of the alphabet with its twenty-three letters is for us. These things have developed in a very strange way, you see: in the first two centuries after the emergence of Christianity, people knew about all these things. But when the Jews were scattered throughout the world, this way of knowing through the ten Sephiroth was also scattered. Individual Jewish students, who, as you may know, were then called Chachamim when they became students of the rabbi, these Chachamim still learned these things; but even there it was no longer really known how to read through these ten Sephiroth. For example, in the 12th century, a great dispute arose over two sentences; the first sentence was called: Hod, Chesed, Binah. Maimonides held on to this sentence. His opponent, on the other hand, claimed: Chesed, Kether, Binah. So people were already arguing about these sentences. You have to know: These sentences are derived from the Sephiroth tree; one person read it this way, another that, and put the elements together in different ways. But this art of reading had actually been forgotten since the Middle Ages. And the interesting thing is that later, in the middle of the Middle Ages, a man appeared, Raimundus Lullus – a very interesting person, this Raimundus Lullus!

You see, gentlemen, getting to know a person like that is actually extremely interesting. Imagine there was someone among you who was quite curious. He would say to himself: Now that I've heard about Raimund Lullus, I want to read up on him! First, take the encyclopedia, but then take any books that mention Raimund Lullus: Yes, if you read what is written about Raimund Lullus in today's books, you will split your sides laughing, because he would have been the most ridiculous person you could ever imagine! People say: This Raimundus Lullus, he wrote ten words on pieces of paper, and then he took something like you have in a game of hazard, a kind of roulette, where you spin, where you jumble up the story, and he would have always jumbled up these ten pieces of paper, and what would have come out, he would have written down, and that would have been his world wisdom. Well, when you read something like that, that words were simply written on ten pieces of paper and mixed up, and the man wanted to find something special by doing that, you have to hold your sides laughing, because it's a ridiculous person who would do something like that.

But that was not the case with Raimundus Lullus. He actually said the following: You can still go as far as you like with all that your earthly alphabet gives you, but you still cannot find the truth. And now he said: Your ordinary head is not good enough to find the truth. This ordinary head is like a roulette wheel that you spin, but there is nothing in it, so nothing can be found to win. Lullus told his fellow human beings: You have actually all become empty-headed, your head is nothing more, there is nothing more in it. And you must put such concepts as these ten sephiroth into your heads one day; you must learn to turn your heads from one of the sephiroth to the other until you learn to use the letters. That is what Raimundus Lullus told them. It is also written in his writings. He only used a picture for it, and the philosophers took the picture seriously and believed that he really meant a kind of roulette where you turn around to mix the tickets, while this roulette that he meant is supposed to be the supersensible recognition in the mind!

This Tree of Life, this Sephiroth Tree, is therefore the spiritual alphabet. People who lived in the West, in Greece, had a spiritual alphabet even in ancient times. And in the time of Alexander the Great and Aristotle, ten concepts were also given there in the Greek way. You can still find them today in all school logics: Being, property, relationship, and so on, and also ten such names, only that they are different because they are suitable for the West. But in the West these ten Greek letters of the spiritual alphabet have been understood just as little as the ones mentioned before.

But you see, it is actually quite an interesting story that is taking place in humanity. Over in Asia, those who still knew something learned to read in the spiritual world through this Sephiroth tree. And in the first centuries of Christianity, people who still knew something about the spiritual world learned to read according to the Aristotelian Tree of Life - over in Greece, in Rome and so on. But gradually everyone – those of the Sephiroth Tree and those of the Aristotle Tree – forgot what these things actually are, and could only list the ten terms. And now we simply have to use these things in such a way that we learn to read in the spiritual world, otherwise little by little people will be forgotten. You see, the following is a very interesting sentence. When a Jewish sage wrote or said: Geburah, Netsah, Hod, one would have to translate today as follows in German: the life-force hatches the dreams in the kidneys. But when one says today: the life-force hatches the dreams in the kidneys, one means physical forces, physical effects. But when the ancient Jew said Geburah, Netsah, Hod, he meant that what is in man as a spiritual being brings about what appears in dreams. Everywhere it was a spiritual assertion that was expressed by what arose from the random throwing together of the letters.

It is indeed only through spiritual science that it is possible today to get any information about these things. Because no one will tell you today that these ten sephiroth were such letters for the spiritual world. You won't hear it anywhere else, no one really knows it today! So you can say that the situation is such that today's science no longer knows most of the things that were once known in humanity, and they must first be regained.

Take this letter that I have drawn for you here: Aleph 8. What does this Aleph mean for the sensory world? Well, it represents a person. This is how he stands, sending out his power. That is this line (drawing). He raises his right hand: that is this line; he stretches out the other hand: that is this line. So this first letter Aleph expresses man. And every letter expressed something – even in Greek – just as the first letter expresses “man”.

You see, gentlemen, today people no longer have any sense of how things are connected. The first letter for man was called Aleph by the Hebrews, Alpha by the Greeks, and by this they meant what moves spiritually in man, what is spiritual behind the physical man. But now you also have an old German word. First of all, it is used when a person has special dreams. When a spiritual person presses him, then this is called the nightmare, the nightmare. One says that something comes over the person that possesses him. But then, from nightmare, emerged elf, and then elf, the elf - these spiritual beings, the elves; the human being is only a condensed elf. The word Elf, which goes back to Alp, may still remind you of Alpha in Greek. You only have to omit the A to get Alph – ph is the same as our F – a spiritual being. Because the F has been added, we say: the Aleph in man, the Alp in man. If you omit the vowels everywhere, as is customary in Jewish, you get directly Alph = EIf for the first letter. People pronounce: Elf for this spiritual being. One speaks of elves. Of course, today one says: These are beings that the ancients invented out of their imagination. We no longer believe in it. But the ancients said: You only need to look at the human being itself to see the alph. The alph is just inside the body, and it is not a fine, ethereal being, but a dense physical being inside the human being. But people have long since forgotten how to understand the human being.

And so you experience the most droll thing, gentlemen. Just imagine that in the second half of the 19th century the following came about - I don't want to say anything against it, such things can happen -: a table was taken, people sat around it, let's say eight people; they place their hands, which then touch at the outermost ends, on the table top, and then the table starts to dance! Then they count the dance steps of the table, and form words out of them, also out of letters. These are spiritualistic sessions. What do people believe? They believe: Well, when we think, then nothing comes out of real knowledge; real knowledge must fall to us from somewhere. Now, in truth, it is so that the people who say that could certainly say it about themselves, because they are mostly those who are thoughtless and do not want to reflect, who would like the truth to come to them from somewhere without their own work. So eight of them sit around a table, then they have the table turned over, the first time A, the second time B, then C and so on, and from that they then form words – and those are then spiritualist revelations. Isn't that so, the wisdom came to them; they did not achieve it themselves!

But look, what should one actually say to such people? Such people want to recognize the spiritual world; that is their honest intention, to recognize the spiritual world. You cannot see the spirits; you cannot see or hear them because they have no body. So people think: they can use the table as a body, and in this way they can make themselves a little understood. Incidentally, it usually comes out as very general things that can be interpreted in different ways! But in any case, you have to say to these people: There you are, eight people sitting around the table; you want a spirit to come that makes itself heard. But aren't you spirits yourselves? You are spirits yourselves, sitting around there! Look at yourselves and seek the spirit within yourselves. There you will be able to find a much greater spirit. You will not assume that you will only be seen when you strike through a table, but when you use your limbs, your voices, and above all your powers of thought in a human way! Therefore it is indeed the case, and there is no need to doubt it, that when eight people sit around a table the table will begin to dance because the subconscious forces are acting on it. That is how it is, but it does not come out as something that would not come out in a much higher sense if a person were to exert his own Alpha or Aleph within himself.

But in the transition from Greek to Roman culture, people have forgotten Aleph. The first letter means A yes, only believe, the first letter means only A, that is, keep your mouth shut! But nothing comes of it. Once a wife got so fed up with her husband constantly lecturing from science. He had learned a lot and always lectured. She found it terribly annoying. And so one day she said to him: “You always want to lecture!” - “If you want to lecture, then shut up!” - Yes, actually the content has been completely lost. The Greeks did not think of one A, one Alpha, without thinking of the human being. They were immediately reminded of the human being. And they did not have a beta without remembering a house in which man lives. The alpha is always man. They imagined something similar to man. And at beta, they imagined something that is around man. Then the Jewish Beth and the Greek beta became the envelope around the alpha, which is still inside as a spiritual being. In the same way, the body would be the Beth, the Beta, and the Alpha would be the spirit within. And now we speak of the “alphabet” - but for the Greeks this means: “man in his house”, or also: “man in his body”, in his covering.

Well, gentlemen, it is actually terribly funny. Take a dictionary in your hand today, then look up all the wisdom that mankind has in the alphabet. If someone - you won't do it - starts at A and stops at Z, then he would have all the wisdom in himself. Yes, but according to what can this wisdom be arranged in man? According to the alphabet, according to what can be known about the human being. It is very interesting: people have spread all wisdom because they no longer knew that it actually points to what comes from the alphabet. If you translate alphabet, it comes out, if you put it a little differently: human wisdom, human knowledge - again expressed with a Greek word: anthroposophy, human wisdom. And that is what every encyclopedia says. Actually, every encyclopedia should include anthroposophy, because it is only arranged according to the alphabet, according to human wisdom, “the human being in his body.” It is terribly funny: actually every encyclopedia represents a skeleton, where in the alphabetically arranged science the old wisdom has disappeared. All flesh and blood has gone, all the muscles and nerves have fallen away. Now go to the encyclopedia; it contains only the dead skeleton of the old science. Now a new science must arise that does not just have the dead skeleton, like the encyclopedia, but really has everything about the human being again, flesh and blood and so on: that is anthroposophy! Therefore, one would like to throw all these encyclopedias to the devil, although they are needed today, because they are the dead skeleton of an old science. A new science must be founded!

You see, gentlemen, that is what you can learn from the Sephiroth tree if you understand it in the right way. It was very useful of Mr. Dollinger to ask this question, because it has taken us a little deeper into anthroposophy.

Next time on Wednesday at nine o'clock.

Mr. Burle: April 22 was the [200th] birthday of Kant. If I may ask Dr. Steiner to tell us something about Kant's teachings, what the differences would be, and whether they would be a contemporary anthroposophical teaching.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, gentlemen, if I am to answer this question, then you will just have to follow me a little today into a field that is difficult to understand. But Mr. Burle, who also asked the question about relativism, always asks such difficult questions! And so today you may have to be prepared for the fact that things are not as easy to understand as what I usually report. But you see, Kant cannot be presented in an easily understandable way because he is not easily understandable in himself. It is true that today the whole world, which is interested in such things at all (I don't want to say interested, because in reality very few people are interested in it, but the whole world pretends to be interested in it), talks about Kant as if he were something that concerns the world very much in the most fundamental sense. And you know, of course, that a whole series of articles have been written for this 200th birthday, which are supposed to make clear to the world what an enormous significance Immanuel Kant had for the entire intellectual life.

You see, even as a boy at school, I often heard from our teacher of literary history: Immanuel Kant was the emperor of literary Germany! – I once misspoke and said: the king of literary Germany. He immediately corrected me and said: the emperor of literary Germany!

Well, I have been studying Kant a great deal at the moment and – as I mentioned in my biography – I had a teacher of history for a while who actually only ever read from other books; I thought to myself, I can read that at home myself. And once, when he had stepped out, I looked up what he was actually reading and got hold of it myself. That was more economical. I got Kant's Critique of Pure Reason from Reclam's Universal Library; I unbound it and stapled it to my schoolbook, which I had in front of me during the lesson, and now read Kant while history was taught by the teacher. That is why I dared to talk quite a bit about Kant, who everyone actually always talks about in such a way that when you say something that has to do with the spiritual, people say, “Yes, but Kant said...” As one always says in theology: Yes, but the Bible says – so many enlightened people actually say: Yes, but Kant said. – I gave lectures twenty-four years ago; I met a person sitting in the auditorium who always slept, always listened asleep; sometimes, when my voice rose a little, he woke up, and especially at the end. I also said something about the spiritual there – he woke up again, jumped up like a jack-in-the-box and shouted: But Kant said! – Well, it is true that Kant makes an enormous amount of essence out of it.

Now let us try to imagine how Kant actually viewed the world. He said, with a certain amount of justification, that everything we see and feel, in short, everything we perceive through our senses, in other words all of nature outside of us, is not reality but appearance. But how does it come about? Yes, it arises from the fact – and this is the difficult part, so you must pay close attention – that something, which he called the “thing in itself”, that is, something completely unknown, of which we know nothing, makes an impression on us; and this impression is what we actually see, not the thing in itself.

So you see, gentlemen, when I draw it for you, it's like this: there is the human being – you could just as easily do it with hearing and feeling, if we want to do it with seeing – there is the thing in itself somewhere out there. But we know nothing about it, it is completely unknown, we know nothing about it. But this thing in itself now makes an impression on the eye. We don't know anything about that either, but it makes an impression on the eye. And inside the human being, an appearance is now created, and we inflate this appearance to the whole world. (Pointing to the drawing): We know nothing about the red, only about what we have as an appearance; what I now draw as violet, we know something about. So actually, according to Kant, the whole world is basically man-made. You see the tree. You know nothing about the tree itself; the tree only makes an impression on you, that is to say: something unknown makes an impression on you, and you form this impression into a tree, and you place the tree in your perceptions. So consider, gentlemen: here is a chair, an armchair - a thing in itself. What is actually there, you do not know; but what is there makes an impression on me. And I actually put the chair there. So when I sit on the chair, I do not know what kind of thing I am actually sitting on. The thing in itself, that which I sit on, that is actually what I put there.

You see, Kant speaks of the limits of knowledge in such a way that you can never know what the thing in itself is, because everything is actually only a world made by man. It is very difficult to make the matter seriously understandable. And when you are asked about this Kant, it is indeed the case that if you really want to characterize him, you have to say some very strange things. For when one looks at the true Kant, it is actually difficult to believe that this is the case. But it is the case that Kant simply asserts from theory, from thinking: No one knows anything about the thing in itself, but the whole world is made only from the impression we receive from things.

I once said: if you don't know what the thing in itself is, then it could be anything; it could consist of pinheads, for example! – And that's how it is with Kant. You could easily say that, according to him, the thing in itself could consist of anything. But now comes the rest: If you stop at this theory, then all of you here, as I see you here, are only my appearance; I have placed all of you on the chairs here, and what is behind each of you as a thing-in-itself, I do not know. And again, when I stand there, you also do not know what kind of thing-in-itself it is, but you see the appearance that you yourself place there. And what I am talking about is what you are listening to yourself! So, what I am actually doing there – the thing in itself, what that is actually doing there, you all don't know; but this thing in itself makes an impression on you. You then project this impression here; you basically hear what you yourself are doing!

Now, taking this example, if we speak in a Kantian sense, we could say something like the following: You sit out there having breakfast and say, “Yes, now we want to go into the hall and listen to this and that for an hour.” We cannot know what the thing in itself is that we hear; but we will look at the stone there, so that we have this phenomenon - at least for an hour - and afterwards we will listen to what we want to hear. That is actually what Kant says first of all, because he claims: We never know anything about the thing in itself!

You see, one of Kant's successors, Schopenhauer, found the matter so clear that he said: There's no doubt about it! - That is absolutely certain, he says, that when I see blue, something out there is not blue, but the blue comes from me when a thing in itself makes an impression on me. If I hear someone out there moaning and suffering pain, then the pain and the moaning come not from him but from me! That, says Schopenhauer, is actually quite clear. And when a person closes his eyes and sleeps, then the whole world is dark and silent; then there is nothing there for him.

Now, gentlemen, according to this theory, you can create the world in the simplest way and then remove it again. You fall asleep, the world is gone; and you wake up again: and you have recreated the whole world - at least the one you see. Apart from that, only the thing in itself is there, of which you know nothing. Yes, Schopenhauer found that quite clear. But Schopenhauer did feel a little queasy about it. He was not entirely comfortable with the assertion. So he said: At least something is outside - blue and red, and all cold and warmth is not outside; when I feel cold, I myself create the cold - but what is outside is the will. Will lives in everything. And the will, that is a completely free demonic power. But it lives in all things.

So he has already put a little something into “the thing in itself”. He also regarded everything we imagine as a mere appearance that we ourselves make; but at least he has already endowed the thing in itself with the will. There were many people and there are still many people today who do not really realize what the consequences of Kant's teaching are. I once met a person who was really - as one should be when one has a doctrine - completely imbued with this Kantian doctrine, and he said to himself: I made everything myself: the mountains, the clouds, the stars, everything, everything, and I also made humanity myself, and I made everything in the world myself. Now, however, I don't like what I have made. I created everything; but now I don't like it. Now I want to get rid of it again. - And then he said that he had started by killing a few people - he was just insane; he said that he started killing a few people in order to fulfill his desire to get rid of the people he had made himself. I told him he should just think about what kind of difference it makes: He has a pair of boots; according to Kant's teachings, he also made them. But he should just think about what, in addition to what he is now doing as an appearance of the boots, the shoemaker has also done!

Yes, you see, that's how it is: the most famous things in the world are often the most nonsensical! And people cling to the most nonsensical with the greatest obstinacy. And, curiously enough, it is the enlightened who cling to it.

What I have told you in a few words, which are already quite difficult to understand, must be read in many books when reading Kant; for that is what he has now peeled apart in long, long theories; and he begins his book “Critique of Pure Reason” - that is what he calls it - by first proving that Space is not outside in the world, I make it myself, I spin it out of myself. So first of all: space is an appearance. Secondly: time is also an appearance. Because it is said: there was once an Aristotle – yes, but I put him into time myself, because I make all of time myself!

Now he has written this great book, the “Critique of Pure Reason”; it makes quite a nice impression. Now if some Philistine comes along and gets hold of a thick book called Critique of Pure Reason, he'll think it's really something, because it's terribly clever. You become a kind of god on earth yourself when you read something like that! But then, after the introduction, it says: Part One. Transcendental Aesthetics. – Well, no, it says: Transcendental Aesthetics. – If someone opens my Philosophy of Freedom, then the chapter title might just be: Man and the World. – Oh, Man and the World, that's something ordinary, you don't even read that. But transcendental aesthetics! – When the philistine opens such a book, he does so with the feeling that it must be something quite tremendous! He does not usually think about what transcendental aesthetics is, but that is just as well for him; it is a word that makes him trip over his tongue a little when he speaks it. That is the main title.

Now comes the subtitle: First Section. The transcendental deduction of space. - Now, you can't think of anything better for a Philistine than to have a chapter like that. And afterwards it begins in a way that he doesn't really understand. But for more than a hundred years everyone has been saying: Kant is a great man. - So when he reads that, he gets a little something out of it himself, and so he gets a little delusions of grandeur.

Then comes the second section: the transcendental deduction of time. - If you have now fought your way through the transcendental deduction of space and time, then comes the second major section: the transcendental analytics. - And in the transcendental analytics, the main thing is to prove that man has transcendental apperception.

Well, gentlemen, I was asked, and I have to tell you these things, the story of transcendental apperception. You have to read through many hundreds of pages to get everything that is contained in this chapter on transcendental apperception. With transcendental apperception, it is meant that man makes his ideas and is a unity in this presentation. So if everything is just an idea, the whole world, then actually now through this transcendental apperception the whole world must be spun out of the nothingness of one's own being. Yes, that's roughly how it is presented there.

So now we come to it: In the chapter on transcendental apperception, Kant spins the whole world with all its trees, clouds, stars and so on out of himself. Yes, he spins them out – that's what he says. But what he actually spins out and what one always has to deal with in this whole wide chapter are the same ideas, only translated a little later, which I recently wrote down for you on the Sephiroth Tree, but only in the form of a mere alphabet, not in such a way that one can read with it, know something! And what's more: at least there it was something very concrete. But Kant spins it out in such a way that he says: the world consists, first, of quantity, second, of quality, third, of relation, fourth, of modality. Now, each of these concepts in turn has three sub-concepts; for example, quantity: unity, multiplicity, allness. Now, quality has: reality, negation, limitation, and so on. There were twelve concepts – three times four is twelve – and you can spin the world out of them. Good old Kant didn't spin the world out of them at all, but actually only spun out twelve concepts with transcendental apperception. So he actually only created twelve concepts, not the world.

If there were any truth in the story, something would come of it! But the Philistines don't even notice that nothing comes of it, that only twelve terms come out, but they now go around the world with a full stomach and with Kantian philosophy, saying, “Nothing can be grasped!” Well, that can be understood with the Philistines; they feel honored when they are told, If they do not understand anything, it is not because of them, but because of the whole world. If you believe that you know nothing, you are right; but that is not because you can do nothing, but because the whole world can know nothing. - And so these twelve concepts come out. That is then the transcendental analytics.

But now the really difficult chapters are coming. Then there is the big chapter entitled: Of the Transcendental Paralogisms. - That's how it goes on in general. In Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” you get title after title! It says: There are people who claim that space is infinite. This proves how people who see that space is infinite prove it. But there are also people who say: space is limited. This is also proved, just as the people prove it. So you will find in the “Critique of Pure Reason” - in the later chapters it shows two opposing sides everywhere - on the one hand it is proved: space is infinite; on the other hand it is proved: space is finite. Then it is proved again: time is infinite, is an eternity. Then it is proved that time had a beginning and will come to an end. And so on, gentlemen. Then it is proved that man is free. And on the other hand, man is not free.

What does Kant mean by providing the evidence for these two opposing assertions? He means to say: we cannot prove anything at all! We might just as well assert: space is infinite as well as finite; time is eternal, time will come to an end! - We might just as well say: man is free, or: he is unfree. - So that boils down to the fact that in modern times you have to say: think as you want to think, you will not arrive at the truth, but for you humans everything is the same.

Then you also get instructions on how to think in this way, taught in transcendental methodology. In this way, one can first take on a book by Kant. So one can ask: Why did Kant actually undertake all this? Then one comes to what Kant actually wanted. You see, up to Kant, people who did philosophy didn't really know much either, but at least they claimed: There is some knowledge about the world that can be known. This was countered by what had already come from the Middle Ages, because, as I have shown you, in the Middle Ages the old knowledge was lost. What had already been grasped in the Middle Ages as a thought was that one can only know something of what the senses represent, and cannot know anything of what is of the spirit. You have to believe that. And so, through the Middle Ages and up to Kant, the assertion arose: You cannot know anything about the spiritual; you can only believe something about the spiritual.

The churches, of course, got away very well with this teaching that one cannot know anything about the spiritual, one must believe that, because then they can dictate what man should believe about the spiritual!

Now, as already mentioned, there were philosophers – Leibniz, Wolff and so on – who, up to Kant, asserted that at least some of the spiritual things in the world can be known by mere reason. Kant now said: It is all nonsense to believe that one can know anything of the spiritual, but one must merely believe all of the spiritual! Because the spiritual lies in the “thing in itself”. You cannot know anything about the 'thing in itself'. Therefore, everything that refers to the spiritual must be believed. And Kant also betrayed himself when he wrote the second edition of his 'Critique of Pure Reason'. In this second edition there is a curious sentence in it; it says: 'I had to stop knowing in order to make room for believing.' That is the confession, actually, gentlemen! That is what led to the unknown thing in itself! That is why Kant called his book “Critique of Pure Reason”: reason itself was to be criticized, that it cannot know anything. And in this sentence: “I had to abandon knowledge in order to make room for faith,” in this actually lies the truth of Kant's philosophy. But that opens the floodgates to all faith. And in fact all positive religion could refer to Kant! But those people who do not want to know anything at all can also refer to Kant, who say: Why do we not know anything? Because one cannot know anything! - You see, so actually the teaching of Kant has become a support of faith. Therefore, it was quite natural that I myself had to completely reject Kant's teachings from the very beginning; although I read the whole Kant as a schoolboy, I always have to completely reject Kant's teachings for the simple reason that one would then simply have to stop at what people believe about the spiritual world and never have any real spiritual knowledge. Kant is actually the one who excludes all spiritual science the most and only wants a certain belief.

So Kant first wrote this first book: “Critique of Pure Reason.” In this “Critique of Pure Reason” it is thus proved: we know nothing of the thing in itself. We can only have a belief about what the “thing in itself” is.

Then he wrote a second book: “Critique of Practical Reason.” He then wrote a third book: “Critique of Judgment,” but that is not so important. So he wrote “Critique of Practical Reason” as his second book. There he has now outlined his own belief. So, first of all, he wrote a book of knowledge: “Critique of Pure Reason”; in it he proved that one can know nothing. Now the Philistine can put the book down; it is proved to him that one can know nothing. Then Kant wrote the “Critique of Practical Reason”; there he now builds his faith. How does he build his faith? He says: If man looks at himself in the world, he is an imperfect being; but to be so imperfect is not really human; so there must be a greater perfection of man somewhere. We know nothing about it; but we believe that there is a greater perfection of man somewhere within the earth, we believe in immortality.

Yes, you see, gentlemen, that is indeed quite different from the scientific considerations I give you for what survives in man when he passes through death! But Kant does not want any such knowledge at all; he simply wants to prove from man's imperfection that man should believe in immortality.

Then he proves in the same way that one should only believe that one cannot know anything about freedom, but should believe that man is free; because if he were not free, he would not be responsible for his actions. So one believes that he can be responsible for being free.

Kant's doctrine of freedom often reminded me of another doctrine that a professor of jurisprudence always mentioned at the beginning of his lectures. He said: “Gentlemen, there are people who say: Man is not free. But, gentlemen, if man were not free, then he would not be responsible for his actions. But then there could be no punishment either. But if there are no punishments, then there can be no science of punishment. I present the science of punishment myself – so then I could not exist either. But I do exist, so there is also a science of punishment, consequently there is also a punishment, consequently also a freedom – so I have proved to you that there is a freedom! What Kant says about freedom reminds me very much of the professor's speech. And Kant speaks of God in the same way. He says: We cannot know anything about any power in itself. But I cannot make an elephant; so I believe that someone else can make it, someone who can make more than I can. So I believe in a God.

Now Kant has written this second book, the “Critique of Practical Reason”. In it, he says that we as human beings should believe in God, freedom and immortality. We cannot know anything about it, but we should believe it. Just think about what an inhuman idea this actually is: first, it is proven that knowledge is actually nothing; secondly, that one should believe in God, in whom one cannot know anything, in freedom and immortality! So Kant is basically the greatest reactionary. People use fine words; that is why they called him the destroyer of everything. Yes, knowledge, he destroyed everything, but only as one destroys toys. Because the world still remains, of course! And faith, he actually supported it in a very considerable way.

This went on throughout the entire 19th century and into the 20th, and today, of course, people everywhere are writing about Kant's 200th birthday! And in reality, Kant is an example of how little people actually think. Because what I have told you now is simply a pure presentation of Kant's teachings! But what people say – that Kant was the greatest philosopher, that Kant cannot be refuted, and so on – well, if you take this example, you really get a good idea of how Kant, in particular, can be used by opponents of spiritual science. Simply because they can then say: Yes, we do not start from religion, but we start from the most enlightened philosopher! But it is really the case that Kant could just as easily be the starting point for the most dogmatic teacher of religion as for any enlightened person.

Then Kant wrote other works, one of which was about the question: How will metaphysics be possible as a science in the future?, in which he actually proves again that it is impossible and so on. You actually have to say: All of science in the 19th century actually suffered from Kant; Kant was basically a disease of science.

Now, if you take Kant as an example of how nonsensical intellectual development sometimes is, then you have taken him in the right way. But then you will also say to yourself: one really has to be careful in knowledge, because the world is terribly bent on perpetrating the very greatest nonsense in knowledge. And you can well imagine the difficult position in which a representative of spiritual science finds himself: not only do you have the representatives of religion against you, but also all the other philosophers and those who have been infected by them, and so on. Every philistine comes and says: Yes, you claim this about the spiritual world; Kant has already proved – so they say – that one cannot know anything about it! – That is actually the best general objection one can make. Some people say: I don't want to hear anything at all about what Steiner says, because Kant has already proved that one cannot know anything about all this.

Are you satisfied?

Mr. Burle says he mainly wanted to hear what Kant meant. It is as Dr. Steiner says: one hears so much about Kant, but nothing positive. It is true that one has to work hard to understand it.

Dr. Steiner: The matter then had consequences. In 1869, a book appeared by someone who was inspired by Kant, 'The Philosophy of the Unconscious', which in turn caused a huge stir. And Eduard von Hartmann was already a very clever person! If Eduard von Hartmann had lived before Kant, if Kant had not had such an influence on him, much more would probably have come of him. But he could not actually go beyond this strong prejudice that one has of Kant. So it was, just as Schopenhauer before, also clear to Eduard von Hartmann that one knows nothing of the whole world but one's own ideas, that which one puts out there oneself. But in addition, he had accepted the Schopenhauerian doctrine that one must equip the thing in itself with the will. Now the will is everywhere inside. I once wrote an article about Eduard von Hartmann, and in it I also mentioned Schopenhauer. Now Schopenhauer said: We know nothing of the thing in itself; we have only ideas about it. Only the ideas are intelligent; the will is stupid. So that actually everything we know about ourselves is nothing more than the stupid will.

In the article in which I mentioned Schopenhauer, I said: According to Schopenhauer, everything in the world that is clever is actually the work of man; because man creates everything in the world; and what is behind it is the stupid will. So the stupidity of the deity is the world. But they confiscated it at the time! It was supposed to be published in Austria.

The thing is this: Eduard von Hartmann assumed that the thing in itself must be endowed with will; but the will is actually stupid, and that is why things are so bad in the world. And that is why Eduard von Hartmann became a pessimist, as they say. That is why he had the view that the world is no good, is not good, but is basically bad, very bad. And not just what people do, but everything in the world is bad. He said: You can calculate that the world is bad. You just have to put on one side, on the debit side, everything you have in life in terms of happiness and pleasure and so on, and on the other side, everything you have in terms of suffering and so on: There is always more on the other side. The balance is always negative. So the whole world is bad. - That's why Hartmann became a pessimist.

But you see, Eduard von Hartmann was, first of all, basically a clever person and, secondly, someone who then also drew the consequences. He said: Why do people still live? Why don't they prefer to kill themselves? If everything is bad, it would be much wiser if one day general human suicide were decided upon; then all this that is created would be gone. But Eduard von Hartmann said, on the other hand, “No, you can't manage to set such a general day of world suicide. And even if we set it - people have emerged from animals; the animals would not kill themselves; then people would emerge from the animals again! So we can't manage it that way. Therefore, he came up with something else. He said to himself: If you really want to wipe out everything in the earthly world, then you can't do it by people committing suicide, but you have to thoroughly exterminate the whole earth. We do not yet have the necessary machines for this today; but people have already invented many machines; therefore, all wisdom must be applied to inventing a machine that can be used to drill into the earth, so that one goes deep enough, and then, by means of a special dynamite or similar device, blows up the whole earth, so that the debris flies out into the world and turns to dust. Then the real ultimate goal will have been achieved.

Yes, this is no joke, gentlemen! This is really the teaching of Eduard von Hartmann, that one should invent a machine that can, one might say, blow up the whole Earth, atomizing and splintering the Earth.

Interjection: In America, they want to build cannons that can shoot the moon down!

Dr. Steiner: But what I have told you is a real philosophical teaching from the 19th century!

Now you will say: There was such a clever man - how can that be? He must have been stupid to have said that! - No, truly, Eduard von Hartmann was not stupid, but he was cleverer than all the others. I can prove that to you right away. But precisely because he was cleverer than the doctrine inspired by Kant, this stupidity arose from the machine with which one is to hurl the world into nothingness. This was asserted by a very clever man, only thoroughly corrupted by Kant.

Now he has written this “Philosophy of the Unconscious”. In this “Philosophy of the Unconscious” he said: Yes, it is quite true that humans have developed from animals; but spiritual forces were also involved. Now these forces are forces of will, not clever but stupid forces. And he presented this very cleverly, and in doing so he presented something that contradicted Darwinism.

Now, back then – just imagine, this was in the 1860s! – there was this clever philosophy of the unconscious by Hartmann and the Darwinism that Haeckel, Oscar Schmidt and others represented, but which was the cleverest thing since sliced bread for the rest of humanity. Now all those who were again stubborn Darwinists, came forward and said: This Eduard von Hartmann, he must be thoroughly refuted; he knows nothing about science! But what did Hartmann do? The following shows what he did at the time. After the others had shouted themselves hoarse – that is, on printing paper – a book also appeared: “The Unconscious from the Point of View of Darwinism”. A thorough refutation of Eduard von Hartmann from the point of view of Darwinism! – But no one knew who it was from.

Well, gentlemen, now the natural scientists were all pleased, because it contained the refutation of Eduard von Hartmann. Even Haeckel said: “Let such a person who has written this against Hartmann call himself to us, and we will consider him one of our own, a naturalist of the first rank!” And sure enough, the book was sold very, very quickly and a second edition appeared: the author named himself - it was Eduard von Hartmann himself! He had written it against himself. But now they stopped praising him; the matter did not become very well known! So he proved that he was cleverer than all the others! But you see, the news that people are given is silent about these stories. But such a piece in the history of ideas must be told; then one comes to this: Eduard von Hartmann was a person who was corrupted by Kant, but who is extremely clever.

Now, if I told you that he wants to blow up the world with a big machine that someone is supposed to invent, you might quite rightly say that he may have been terribly clever, Eduard von Hartmann, but for those of us who have not yet studied Kant, it seems like a stupid thing to do after all. And you might well believe that, however cleverly I describe Eduard von Hartmann, he must have been stupid. You could easily believe that. But then you would have to tell and think that the others were even stupider; and then I am satisfied for my own sake! But it can be proved historically that the others were even more stupid than one who proves that the earth should be blown up.

It is important to know such a thing, because today there still exists this peculiar worship of everything that is printed. And since Kant appeared in the “Universal Library” - I was only able to read him because of it, because otherwise I couldn't have bought him; but he was cheap, even though the books are so thick - since then, there's been even more of a devil's mess with Kant than before, because since then everyone has been reading Kant. That is, they read the first page, but they don't understand anything. Then they hear that Kant is “the emperor of literary Germany”; so they think: Gosh, now that we know about Kant, we're smart people ourselves! And most of them are such that they admit: Yes, I have to say that I understand Kant, because otherwise the others will say I'm stupid if I don't understand Kant. In reality, people don't understand him, but they don't admit that; they say, “I have to understand Kant because he's very clever.” So I say, “I understand something very clever when I understand Kant!” Then it also impresses people.

But really, gentlemen, although it was difficult to present this question in a somewhat popular way, I am nevertheless glad that it was chosen as the question, because it showed what is actually going on in the so-called intellectual life of people, and how careful people actually have to be when something like this affects them, which itself leads to the fact that now in all newspapers a lot is made of the 200th birthday of Kant. I am not saying that Kant should not be celebrated – others are celebrated as well – but the truth is as I have told you.

We will continue our discussion next Saturday at nine o'clock.

Mr. Pea: What do the comets that appear from time to time mean? And how does the zodiac differ from the other stars?

Dr. Steiner: This question will lead us a little into the understanding of astronomy. You are attending lectures on astronomy, and it will be very helpful if we can discuss this question from a certain point of view.

When we look at the starry sky, we have the moon as the largest star and also the one closest to us. The moon therefore also has the most noticeable influence on the people of the earth. And you have certainly already heard how the moon stimulates the imagination of people. That is something that everyone knows. But I have told you about other influences of the moon, which it also has on the reproduction of beings and so on. Then we see other heavenly bodies that behave in a similar way to the moon. The moon moves - you can see it move - and the other stars that are similar to it also move. We call these stars, which also move, planets.

Now it also appears that the sun moves. In reality it does move; but in relation to our Earth it does not move. It always remains at about the same distance and does not describe a circle around the Earth either. The sun is therefore referred to as a fixed star. And so the other stars, except for those that clearly change their position, are fixed stars.

If you look at the starry sky, you will see roughly the same view that the starry sky reveals every night – especially on nights when there is moonlight. But there are changes in the starry sky. Especially in certain weeks during the summer, you can see how one star after another – seemingly – moves quickly and then disappears: shooting stars. Such shooting stars can be seen in the sky at other times as well, but they are especially visible in certain summer weeks, when crowds of such small stars light up, quickly move across the sky and then disappear.

But in addition to these, there are the stars that Mr. Erbsmehl mentioned in his question: the comets. These comets appear only more rarely; they also differ in terms of their shape from the other stars. They show a shape that looks something like this, for example: they have a kind of nucleus, and then they have a tail that they trail behind them. Sometimes they also look like they are trailing two such tails. When you look at the other stars that are moving, they have a movement that is relatively regular and you always know at what point in time these other stars appear; at another point in time they are below the earth and do not appear, while with these stars, the comets, you perceive: they come and go away again, without you really knowing where they actually go. So within the other stars they show, so to speak, irregular movements.

Now, these comets were always understood differently by people than the other stars, and in particular these comets played a major role for superstitious people. These superstitious people believed that when such a comet appears, it means misfortune.

This is not particularly surprising, because anything that does not behave in a regular way causes people to be amazed and astonished. It need not be taken so terribly seriously, because people also find that even with quite ordinary objects, which otherwise always behave differently, it means something when they behave differently. For example, if you drop a knife, it usually does not get stuck in the ground but falls smoothly. It means nothing because one is accustomed to it. But if the knife does get stuck in the ground, superstitious people think that means something. When the moon appears – people are used to that, it doesn't mean anything special to them. But when a star like that appears, which also has a special shape, then yes, that means something special! So you don't need to get upset about it when superstitious people associate things with something.

Above all, we must now look at the matter scientifically. And in that respect, the following is true: In not very ancient times, people were more guided by what they saw in the sky and described the Earth as being at the center of the world. I will just tell you how it was imagined. And that the Earth is surrounded by the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun and so on, and that the whole starry sky, as you can see - every star rises and sets again - moves. So you can see the starry sky moving. If you stayed outside long enough, you would see how the so-called fixed stars apparently move across the sky. In the old days, people took it for granted because that's what they saw, and described it as they saw it.

Now, as you know, in the 15th and 16th centuries, Copernicus came along and said: No way! The Earth is not the center of the universe, but the Sun is the center, and Mercury, Venus, the Earth and so on move around the Sun. This meant that the Earth itself was made into a planet. A completely different world system, a completely different view of space emerged. And just like the Sun, the other fixed stars should now also be fixed. Their movement is therefore only an apparent one.

You see, gentlemen, the thing is this: I have already touched on this matter in answer to another question put by Mr. Burle, concerning the theory of relativity and whether there is any truth in these theories and in some of the others that have been put forward. For example, there was a theory put forward by a certain Tycho Brahe, who said: Yes, the sun stands still, but the earth also stands still, and so on. - So there have been other world systems; but we are looking at these two: the old one, which mainly goes back to Ptolemy, the Ptolemaic system, and then the Copernican system, which goes back to Copernicus. So these are two world systems. There is something right about each one. In particular, if you look at the facts very carefully, you cannot tell whether one or the other is right.

The thing is this, gentlemen: I told you at the time that there are people who claim that when I drive up from Villa Hansi to the Goetheanum in my car, for example, it is impossible to tell whether the car is driving or the Goetheanum is coming towards it! Well, it is certainly not possible to distinguish between the two by looking at them, but only by the fact that the car is worn out and needs petrol, whereas the Goetheanum does not. You can tell by looking at the inside. In the same way, when you enter Basel, you can tell whether Basel is coming out to meet you or you are going in because you are tiring. So you can only tell by looking at the inside.

From this it should be clear to you that every world system is actually such that it can be right from one side and wrong from the other. You cannot make an absolute decision. That is how it is! You really cannot decide in the case of a world system which is completely right and which is completely wrong. You will say: Yes, but the facts are calculated! Yes, you see, they are calculated, but the calculations that are made are never quite right! For example, if you calculate how fast a star is moving, you know that after a certain time it must be at a certain place in the sky. So you calculate where a star should be at a certain time, point the telescope in that direction, and now the star should be inside the telescope. Often it is not there, so you have to correct the formula again; and so it turns out that actually no calculation is completely correct. The situation in the world system is such that no calculation is completely correct! Where does that come from? Imagine you know a person quite well. Then you will say to yourself, if he promises you something, you can be absolutely sure of it. Suppose you know a person quite well; he has promised you that on May 20th at five o'clock in the afternoon he will be at such and such a place. You can also be there. You will be quite sure that he will be there because you know him. But now it may happen that he does not come! And so it is with the world system. If you look at small things, then you can say: You can safely rely on things happening as you know them. So if I heat a stove, it will spread heat throughout the room according to the laws of nature. It is not very likely that a fire will not produce heat in the room! But that stops, gentlemen, when the large-scale relationships in the universe begin. There, history is just as certain as it is for the individual human being, but also just as uncertain. So that everything you calculate always has a kink somewhere. And what causes the kink? The kink is not only caused by the fact that these solar systems do not depend on themselves alone. Suppose that on the way he came to you something particularly pleased the person in question. He was delayed. If these planetary systems were such that nothing could occur in them except what the sun, moon and stars do, then they could also be calculated; one would know exactly where a star is at a given time, to within a thousandth of a second, because calculations can be made very precisely. But, as I said, the calculations have a glitch. This is merely due to the fact that these systems are not allowed to be completely uninhibited in space, but comets now penetrate into it, passing through; and with these comets penetrating from space, space gives this planetary system something similar to what we get when we eat: The comet is a kind of nourishment for the planetary system! And the thing is this: when such a comet enters, there is always a slight change in the motion; and so one never arrives at a completely regular motion. The thing is this, gentlemen: the irregularity in the motion or in the rest of the entire planetary system comes from the comets.

Now the comets themselves. You see, people claim: Yes, a comet like that comes from so far away that you don't see it at first; when it comes close to the solar system, that's when you start to see it (it is drawn). So there you see it. Now it moves on; you still see it, then something else, and there it disappears. Now what do people say? People say: Well, that is above the earth, that can be seen; but then the comet goes across like that, becomes invisible and comes back again after a number of years. That is what people say.

If I draw the solar system for you, we have the sun; there are the planets. Now people imagine: the comet comes from far away, from outside the solar system, comes here into the area of the sun; and since you can no longer see it when it is down there, it is coming back again. So they imagine that the planets move in a short ellipse, but the comet in a huge long ellipse. And when it comes in and we have it above us, that you can look up, then it remains visible, otherwise it is invisible, and then comes back again. Halley's Comet, named after its discoverer, appears every seventy-six years.

Now, gentlemen, there is something in it, however, where spiritual science cannot go along with its observations: It is not at all true that the comet goes round like that! What is really true is that the comet is only just coming into being here, and there it separates, if I may say so, the cosmic matter together, there the cosmic matter collects; there it comes into being (pointing to the drawing), goes on like that, and here it disappears again, dissolves. This line (ellipse) here does not really exist. So you are dealing with a form that arises at a certain distance and disappears at a certain distance. Yes, but what is actually happening?

Well, you realize that it isn't true that the sun is standing still! It is stationary in relation to the Earth, but in relation to space it is moving at a tremendous speed. The entire planetary system is racing through space, moving forward. The sun is moving toward the constellation of Hercules. You might ask how we know that the sun is moving toward the constellation of Hercules? You know that when you walk down an alley and stand there, the trees that are in front seem further apart, and then they seem to get closer and closer. Isn't it true that when you look down an alley, the trees seem to get closer and closer; but if you now continue walking in that direction, it is as if these trees are moving apart. The space that you see between the two trees becomes larger and larger. Now imagine that if this is the constellation of Hercules, then the stars in the constellation of Hercules are at certain distances from each other. If our solar system is stationary, these distances should always remain the same. But if the sun moves with the other planets, the stars of Hercules must appear larger and larger, they must appear to move apart. And they really do! For centuries it has been observed that the distances in the constellation of Hercules are getting larger and larger. This shows that the sun really is moving towards the constellation of Hercules. And just as one can calculate here, when measuring with a sighting instrument, how close we pass and how fast - if one walks faster, the distance increases more rapidly than for another - so one can also calculate how the sun passes. The calculations are always very precisely executed. So the entire planetary system with the sun races towards the constellation of Hercules.

But this rushing along is something that affects the planetary system just as it would if you were working. When you work, you lose some of your substance, and you have to replace it. And so it is that when the planetary system rushes through space, it constantly loses some of its substance. This must be replaced. The comets roam around collecting the substance, and it is captured again when the comet passes through the planetary system. In this way, the comets replace the unusable, excreted substance of the planetary system. But at the same time, these comets enter the planetary system and cause an irregularity in it, so that the movements cannot be calculated in reality.

This also shows you that if you go far enough, the matter in space comes to life! Such a planetary system is actually a living being; it must eat. And the comets are being eaten!

What are these comets mainly made of? These comets have as their most important substance that which is needed from the sky within the planetary system: they have carbon and nitrogen in them. Of course they also have hydrogen and so on. But these two substances are particularly important: carbon and nitrogen. We need the nitrogen in the air, it must always be renewed; we need the carbon because all plants need it. And so the Earth really draws its materials from space! They are always replaced.

But the matter goes further. You know that when you eat, you eat things that are still large on the plates; but you chop them up, you bite them. First of all, you cut them up. And you have to do that because if you were to swallow a whole goose, if that were possible, it would not do you any good! You have to chop it up. Likewise, you cannot swallow a whole calf's head; only snakes can do that, humans cannot. That has to be chopped up. Now, the planetary system does the same with its food. Such a comet can sometimes - not every one, but some can be swallowed whole, like a snake. But there are also comets that are chopped up when they come in. Then the comet disintegrates, as for example in August the meteor swarm disintegrates into lots of little stars that come down as shooting stars. Because these shooting stars are nothing but tiny pieces of comets rushing down. And so you not only see the way in which the world's food enters the solar system, but at the same time you see how this world's food is consumed by the earth. So in this way you can really see what significance the comets, which appear so irregularly, have for the earth.

Now, you see, the thing is this – you have to disregard all superstition –: on the whole, what is happening on Earth, the comet has its extraterrestrial influence, which can also be seen. It is indeed remarkable: you know that there are good and bad wine years; but the good wine years actually come from the fact that the earth has become hungry. Then it leaves its fertility more to the sun, and the sun, after all, causes the goodness of the wine. If the earth has a good wine year, then one can be almost certain that a comet will come soon after, because the earth was hungry again and needs nourishment for the other. Then come bad wine years. If a good wine year comes again, a comet comes afterwards. It depends on the state of the earth's substances, together with the way the comets appear and do not appear.

Now the question was raised as to how the zodiac differs from the other fixed stars.

It is not true that if you simply look out into the vastness of the universe, you will see countless stars. These stars appear to be arranged irregularly. But you can always distinguish groups, which are called constellations.

Now, what you see there is actually closer or further away from the moon. If you look at these stars, you can see the moon, right, going through the starry sky. But there are certain constellations that the moon always passes through; it does not pass through the others. So if you look at the constellation of Hercules, for example, the moon does not pass through it. But if you look at the constellation of Leo, the moon always passes through the constellation of Leo after a certain period of time. And so there are twelve constellations that are distinguished by the fact that they are, so to speak, the path that the moon takes, which the sun also takes. They are therefore actually the indicators of the path that the sun and the moon take across the sky. So you can say: the twelve constellations Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces, they are the path of the moon; it always passes through them – not through the other constellations. So you can always say: At a certain time, when the moon is in the sky, it is either in front of a constellation or between two, but those constellations that belong to the zodiac.

Now, gentlemen, just consider that every star in the sky has an influence on the earth in general and on people in particular. Man is truly not only dependent on what is on the earth, but man is connected with what is in the sky as stars.

Imagine any random star or constellation out there: It rises in the evening, as they say, and sets in the morning. It is always there, always exerting its influence on people. But imagine another constellation, let's say the twins or the lion, for example: that's where the moon passes. At the moment the moon passes, it covers the twins or the lion; I only see the moon, but I don't see the twins. So they cannot have any influence on earth at that moment either, because their influence is covered. So we have stars everywhere in the sky that are never covered, neither by the sun nor by the moon, but which always have their influence on earth; on the other hand, we have stars where the moon passes by, and the sun also passes by, apparently; they are covered again and again from time to time, and their influence ceases. And so we can say: Leo is a constellation in the zodiac, it has a certain influence on man. But when the moon is in front of it, it does not have it; man is free from the influence of Leo, the influence of Leo does not affect him.

Now imagine you are standing there and are terribly lazy and do not want to walk, but someone pushes you from behind and you have to walk; they are driving you forward, that is their influence. But now suppose I hold back the influence; they cannot push you – so the influence is not exerted on you; if you are to walk, you have to walk yourself!

You see, people need these influences. So what is the story, gentlemen? Let's get this right: the constellation of Leo has a certain influence on people. This influence is present as long as the constellation is not covered by the moon or the sun. But now let's move on. Let's make another comparison with life. Say you want to know something. Let us assume that you have a governess or a tutor who usually knows everything; as a young boy you are too lazy to think, so you ask the tutor; he tells you - after all, he also does your homework. But if the tutor has gone out, if you don't have a tutor and you have to do your homework, you have to find the strength within yourself. You have to remember.

Now, Leo has a constant influence on people; only when the moon covers it is there a lack of influence. But when the moon covers the influence of Leo, then people have to develop it out of themselves. So a person who, while the constellation is covered by the moon, can strongly develop this influence of Leo out of themselves is, so to speak, a Leo person. And someone who can develop the influence of the constellation of Cancer when it is covered is a Cancer person. Depending on their predisposition, some people develop one or the other more. But as you can see, the zodiacal constellations are particularly distinguished: with them, it is the case that the influence is sometimes exerted and sometimes not. The moon, which passes by the constellations every four weeks, also brings about the fact that within four weeks we always have a point in time when this influence is not exerted on any zodiacal constellation; and with the other constellations it is always the same. And because in ancient times people paid very close attention to this influence from the heavens, the zodiac was naturally more important to them than the other constellations. Because the others always have an influence; that does not change. But with the zodiac, one can say: that changes, depending on whether a picture in the zodiac is covered or not. And for that reason, the zodiac has always been particularly studied in its effect on the earth. And now you also see why the zodiac is more important for observing the starry sky than the other stars. But from all this you will see that mere calculation, as I said to you recently, cannot actually be the whole of astronomy, but that one must go into such things as I have explained to you here.

It is indeed the case that today, when one talks about such things, one is still regarded as a fantasist, as half a fool, because people say: Well, if you want to know something about the stars, you should go to the astronomers at the observatory; they know everything! You know that there is a kind of saying: Because man is also dependent on all kinds of external influences with regard to his gouty conditions, some people say that when someone has a twinge or has gout, he should go to the observatory and have the matter regulated there. Now, people look at you as if you were half-crazy when you want to say something from the spirit about these things. But the following things happen. Based on this knowledge, which arises from spiritual science, I succeeded in saying the following in a series of lectures in Paris in 1906: If it is all true about comets, if they really exist to fulfill these tasks, then there must be a connection between carbon and nitrogen in them. - This had not been known until then. And carbon and nitrogen together make up cyanogen, prussic acid. Carbon and nitrogen should therefore, I said, also be found in comets. That was said by me in Paris in 1906. At the time, no one was required to believe it who did not recognize the importance of spiritual science. But then, a short time later, I was on a lecture tour in Sweden – and a very surprising news item appeared in all the newspapers: that cyanogen had been discovered in the comet that had appeared at the time, using the spectroscope.

You see, people are always saying: Well, the anthroposophists should, when they know something, also say something that can be confirmed afterwards. Yes, countless such things have happened! Really, in 1906 I predicted this discovery that there is cyanogen in the comet! It was actually made right afterwards. And from this you can see that the things are actually true, because you can prove the matter afterwards if you only do it right. But of course, when something like that happens again, people keep quiet and hush it up because it doesn't suit them. But it is true. So from spiritual knowledge one can say about comets, right down to their material composition, that they contain cyan, and this is then confirmed. And that is such an example.

That is why I do not shy away from saying things that seem completely foolish to people: that the comets arise here and pass away there, that is, they collect their matter here and then disappear again when they come out of the planetary system. That is what spiritual observation reveals. In time, physical observation will also confirm this. Today, it can only be said on the basis of spiritual observation.

Much of what materialistic science says today is extremely fantastic. For example, people imagine that the sun is a kind of gas ball. It is not a gas ball at all, but is actually something quite different from a gas ball. You see, gentlemen, if you have a seltzer bottle, there are little pearls inside. Now, someone might think: well, there's the seltzer water, and there are the little pearls inside – there are things floating in it. But that's not how it really is, rather, there is the seltzer water, and there is the hollow space (it is drawn). There is less in it than in the rest of the water. Now that is carbonic acid gas and there is water all around it, but the gas is just thinner than the water. In relation to the water, what is in it is a cavity, and in relation to the water, all you need is the fineness of the gas. Now the sun is also a cavity in the universe, but it is thinner than any gas; it is very thin where the sun is! Yes, even more, gentlemen: when you walk through the world, you are in space. But where the sun is, space is also hollow. What does that mean: space is hollow? What that means: Space is hollow – you can see from the following: If you pump out an air pump until it is empty of air, if you now make an opening there, this airless space immediately draws in the outer air, and with a tremendous whistle the outer air shoots in. With the sun, it is the case that what is there is a cavity of everything; not only of the air, but also of the warmth – a cavity of everything. Now this hollow space is so that it is closed off spiritually on all sides and that only through the sunspots now and then something can shoot in. The astronomers, they would be very surprised when they really could go up there with a world car or something similar or with a world ship - it could not be an airship because the air stops up there, but with a world ship of matter. The astronomers would expect: Well, when we arrive at the top, when we arrive, we come into such a gas nebula, because the sun is glowing gas. And they only expect that this glowing gas would burn them, they would rise in the fire, because they received many thousands of degrees of temperature. But they don't have the opportunity to be consumed by the fire, because the sun is also hollow in terms of warmth; there is no warmth there either! They could endure all of that. They could even endure the heat if they could get up into the sun in a huge spaceship. But there is something else that cannot be endured: the situation is similar to when the air is let in with a whistle – not let out, let in – and you would quickly be drawn into the sun and immediately you would be dust, completely scattered, because the sun is a cavity that absorbs everything; you would be completely absorbed. It would be the safest way to disappear.

So materialistic science has a completely wrong view of the sun. It is a hollow space in relation to everything else; and that makes it, of all the stars closest to us, the lightest person out there in space, the very lightest. The moon is relatively heavy because it once went out of the earth and took with it the heavy substances that the earth could not use. So that the sun and the moon are also complete opposites in this respect: the sun is the lightest body in space, the moon the most material body. It is, of course, lighter than the earth because it is much smaller, if one were to weigh it, but in relation, which is called specific weight, it is heavier. From this it follows that in relation to the sun, because it is the lightest body in space, the most spiritual being emanates. And that is why I was able to tell you in relation to what Mr. Dollinger asked about the Christ-question: that from the sun the most spiritual being emanates when we are born, because the sun is the most spiritual being; the moon is the most material being. And if the moon is the most material being, then it has an influence on the human being that goes beyond the everyday in the material. You see, all the other stars except the moon naturally have their influence. And when we digest, when we see blood circulating, the stars have an influence on all of this. They have an influence on material processes. But if you imagine eating a piece of bread, the bread is gradually transformed into blood; something is transformed into something else: a part of the human being is created, blood is created when you metabolize bread. When you salt the bread, the salt goes into the bones and is transformed. A part is always created because these matters only relate to parts of the human being. Everything on earth can only give rise to a part of the human being; so what arises must then remain in the human being. But the moon has a strong material influence; therefore it has an influence on reproduction: and not only a part, but the whole human being arises! The sun has an influence on the spiritual, the moon, because it itself is the material, has an influence on the material. So that man produces himself or produces an image of himself under the influence of the moon. That is the contrast: the effects of the sun always, so to speak, produce our thoughts, our willpower anew. The moon has the influence of producing material forces anew, of bringing forth the material man anew. And between the moon and the sun are the other stars, which partly bring about the fact that other things happen in man.

All this can be seen. But when considering the astronomical, one must always take the human into account at the same time. You see, the astronomer says: What I see with the naked eye does not impress me; I have to look through the telescope. Then I rely on the telescope; that is my instrument. - Spiritual science says: Oh, what you see with telescopes! Of course you see a lot there; we want to acknowledge that too; but the best instrument that can be used to recognize the universe is the human being himself. You can recognize everything by looking at a person. The human being himself is the best instrument because everything is revealed in the human being. What is going on up there in Leo can be seen in the blood circulation of a person. When the moon is in front of Leo, you can tell from the blood circulation in the human body. What is going on up there in Aries can be seen in the hair growth of a person. And when the moon is in front of Aries, hair grows more slowly, and so on. So you can see everywhere in a person what is going on in the universe. If, for example, a person develops jaundice, then of course one must first look at the cause in the body, but why does a person ultimately develop jaundice? Because they are particularly predisposed when the moon covers the constellation of Capricorn, to develop the forces of Capricorn from within.

And so we can see everywhere: the human being is the instrument by which everything is recognized. If, for example, the human being becomes dulled to the influence of Aquarius, when Aquarius is covered by the moon and the human being cannot develop the forces of Aquarius from within, then he gets corns. In this way, one can see everywhere in the human being, as an instrument, what is going on in the universe, if one only does it scientifically, not superstitiously. And so, in this way, it is a real science that spiritual science pursues. Of course, as many people think, it is indeterminate, so you can't see anything from what they think. The saying applies: “If the cock crows on the dung heap, the weather changes, or it stays as it is.” It is indeed the case that many people think about the world: “If the cock crows on the dung heap, the weather changes, or it stays as it is.”

But if you really get into it, then it is not so; then you recognize in man, as the most perfect instrument that you can have, more perfectly than through all others, what occurs in the universe. So it is not the case that you are merely inventing the matter, but you are studying what is going on in the human being. Of course, you first have to know how it is with the corns, how they form out of the skin and so on, that you can figure out how it works when the constellation, Aquarius, is covered. But if you study the matter in man, you can study the whole universe in man.

The next lesson is next Wednesday.

Good morning, gentlemen! Perhaps someone has also thought of something for today's hour?

Question: How are we to understand the miracles related in the Bible about Moses – the stilling of the sea?

Dr. Steiner: You see, that was based not so much on a sudden miracle as on the fact that Moses was very knowledgeable. He was not just what he is portrayed as in the Bible, but he was actually a student of the Egyptian high schools, the mysteries. And in these schools they taught not only about the spiritual world, but also about the natural world from a certain point of view. Now in the sea there is the time of the ebb and the flow, of such a rising and then again going back, and the thing was just this, that Moses knew how to organize the crossing over the Red Sea so that he went over with his people at a time when the sea had gone back and a sandbank, which had become visible as a result, that is, had been laid bare, could be used to go over. So the miracle is not that Moses dammed up the Red Sea and fought it, but that he actually knew more than the others, that he could choose the time in the right way. The others did not know that. Moses had calculated the matter so that he arrived at just the right time - he knew that it took so long, or rather that it had to go quickly so that one would not be surprised by the sea again. Of course, all of this seemed like a miracle to the others. In these things, one must always make sure that knowledge actually underlies the things, not some other things, but knowledge.

This is the case with most things reported from ancient times. The people were amazed because they did not understand the matter, did not know. But then, when you know that there were very clever people in ancient times too, then you can explain things. Otherwise, there is not much to explain about these things.

Perhaps someone has a question?

Question: Can the spiritual culture that flows from Tibet into the rest of Asia still satisfy these people, or does it fall entirely into decadence?

Dr. Steiner: Well, you see, Tibetan culture is a very old culture, and it is a culture that actually comes from the ancient Atlantic period. You just have to imagine that there was a time when most of Europe was under water, and the water only receded towards Asia. In contrast, there was land where the Atlantic Ocean is today. Where we cross over to America between Europe and America today, there was land. So that was an ancient time when the ratio of land and water was quite different from what it is today.

But now, in the time that lies five, six, seven thousand years back, the same culture was in Asia as on this Atlantic continent, which was thus in the place that is now covered by the sea between Europe and America. Over there in Asia, there was a culture in those days that has been preserved in the clefts, in the subterranean caves of Tibet. This Atlantic culture was, of course, completely submerged when the sea came between Europe and America and Europe rose up; but in Tibet, over there, it was preserved. But now this culture was actually only suitable for those ancient times, where people lived under completely different conditions than today. You just have to imagine that in those days the air was not the same as it is today, that people were not as heavy as they are today, but that people had a much lower weight, that the air was much denser. Actually, in those days the air was always interspersed with a thick fog, which made it possible to live in a completely different way.

Now, writing and reading or anything like that didn't exist back then, but people had signs. These signs were not put on paper. Paper didn't exist. But they weren't put on parchment either; they were scratched into rocks. These rocks had been hollowed out by people, and into the interior of these caves they then scratched, as it were, their secrets; so that one must actually understand the signs they made if one wants to know what these people imagined.

Now you may ask: Why did these people keep it so secret? Yes, you know, the oldest architecture was not at all about building on the outside, but rather digging into the rocks and making dwellings in the rock. So that is the oldest form of architecture. It is not surprising that the oldest form of architecture in Tibet is the same. But such a culture gradually comes to decadence and decline. And what was later created in Tibet is such that it is no longer really useful in the present day, because Tibetan culture is older than Indian culture. Indian culture only emerged after the earth had taken on the form it has today. Tibetan culture is therefore very old. And this Tibetan culture has preserved in a poor form what was previously present in a relatively good form. Thus, the principle of rule in particular has been developed in Tibet in a rather unpleasant form. In Tibet, the one who is to be the ruler actually enjoys divine worship; and this divine worship is basically already prepared. One actually chooses there, I would say, in a transcendental way. The Dalai Lama, who is thus chosen as ruler, comes about in such a way that long before, when the old Dalai Lama is still there and one realizes: Now, this old Dalai Lama may soon die -, a family is determined somewhere, and one says: The new Dalai Lama must come from this family. - That was the case in Tibet in earlier times. It was not a hereditary rule. That was not the case, but a priesthood that actually rules in reality determines a new family from which a Dalai Lama should emerge.

Now, if a child was born into this family, it was kept until the old Dalai Lama died. You can imagine that the greatest mischief was done with this. If the old Dalai Lama no longer suited someone, they simply looked for a child and said: “The soul of the old Dalai Lama must now enter this soul.” But first he had to die. The priesthood took care of that at the right time, and then, for the sake of the people's faith, the soul of the old Dalai Lama entered the child. In this way the people have driven it to the fact that actually the whole nation believed: the same soul that is in any Dalai Lama was already in the Dalai Lama many thousands of years ago. It is always the same soul, they thought. Actually, for the people it has always been the same Dalai Lama; he has only changed the outer body.

It was not like that in the old culture that was there before; but that is quite extraordinary nonsense that has arisen. However, you can see from this that it has gradually become more important for the priesthood to do things in such a way that their rule was secured.

However, this does not prevent us from discovering great scientific secrets that people in ancient times once had, despite the fact that if we manage to decipher these signs that are engraved on the rocks, but to which Europeans have only rarely had access, the priesthood has gradually come to see that it was important to conduct things in such a way as to ensure their rule.

Now it is like this: the same knowledge that was once there, that came to people as if in a dream fog, this same knowledge is to come to people again through anthroposophy. But that cannot happen in the Orient. You see, in the Orient a new knowledge, a new realization, will never come about in the same way as here in Europe, because the Oriental body is not suited to it. The experiments that have to be carried out to achieve the things I have just told you about can only be done in the West, not in the East. But the Oriental is conservative to a degree that the European can hardly imagine. He does not want anything new, and so of course what we are doing here in Europe makes no particular impression on him. If, on the other hand, you can tell him that significant wisdom comes to light from the old crypts, as these rock caves are called, and that is old, then it makes a very powerful impression on him. The Europeans also have a little of this: you only have to look at the higher degrees of the Masonic lodges when you enter them! As for Anthroposophy, well, they are a little interested in that because they are also concerned with supersensible things; but they do not go into it very deeply. If, on the other hand, you tell them: This has been found, this was an ancient Egyptian wisdom or an ancient Hebrew wisdom, they are delighted! They go into it right away, because human beings are such that what is newly found does not make a real impression on them; on the other hand, what is ancient, even if it is not understood, is what makes a very considerable impression on people. Therefore, one can assume that it is quite possible, because it is a matter of ancient wisdom that can be found in Tibet, that it can be used to achieve a certain revival. Because many things have also been lost to the Asians, because the most important Asian culture, Indian culture, was only established later. So much of what Asians do not know could be found in Tibet. Now, the people there do not really have the opportunity to spread the word properly, because the old Tibetan priesthood did nothing to spread it; they just wanted to keep the old rule for themselves. Knowledge is power when it is kept secret. And when the Europeans came to Tibet, they did not understand the things. So there is not much prospect that the real Tibetan truths can be spread; they live on in old traditions. Because the thing is still so that much has just come down to posterity, and that one can already have an idea of what is actually hidden there. But it is difficult to imagine any actual dissemination. The matter is decadent, as you say in the question; but if one goes back to what is written in the crypts, and not to what the priesthood says, then one will be able to get hold of something extraordinary. It will just be extraordinarily difficult to decipher it. Without anthroposophy it is difficult to find. Anthroposophy can decipher it, but does not need to, because it finds the thing itself.

Question: How could Europe do something to turn around such a downward trend in Asia?

Dr. Steiner: That is a very good question! You see, if Europe does not do something, then the world will have to go downhill! Because in Asia, as can be seen from the words I have just said, people hold on to the old, but do not know any progress. You can see that in China. China is at the same stage as it was thousands of years ago. The Chinese had many things thousands of years ago that were only discovered in Europe much later: paper, the art of printing, and so on, they already had there. But they do not accept progress, they keep it in the old form.

The Europeans, on the other hand, when they come to Asia, what do they do? The English brought the Chinese opium and such things in the first half of the 19th century! But the Europeans have actually done nothing right so far to spread any kind of real spiritual life in Asia. It's also difficult because people just don't accept it.

You see, that's where it's interesting: you know, there are also European missionaries; they go over there with European religion, European theology and want to spread European culture in Asia. Yes, that makes no impression on the Asians! Because then these missionaries describe a Christ Jesus to them as they imagine him. The Asian says: Yes, when I look at my Buddha, he has much more excellent qualities! - So that does not impress them at all. They would only be impressed if Jesus Christ were presented as he was here in these lectures some time ago, also in response to your questions. Then, of course, it would make an impression. But the Asian would still be conservative, reactionary, and initially mistrustful.

It is also very strange, gentlemen: You see, there are individual students of the old wisdom. These students in Asia have learned something from Tibetan scholars, sages, Tibetan initiates. The initiates themselves do not deal with the Europeans; but students have dealt with them after all. Yes, sometimes one is quite extraordinarily amazed. I have already told you many things that will have amazed you, such as the influence of the universe on man. If you really want to research that, it takes a very long time. I can truly say: Some of what I can tell you today took forty years before I could say it! Because you can't find it overnight, but you have to find it over the years. Now such things are found. For example, what I have told you about the moon, that it has a population that has to do with the population of the earth in that reproduction is regulated by it. Yes, gentlemen, you really don't find that on the paths that current science takes; nor do you find it overnight, but you do find it over the course of many years. It is so! Then you have it. Yes, but then, when you have it, suddenly a strange light dawns on you about what the students of the oriental initiates say. Before that, you don't understand it at all. People talk, let's say, of spirits of the moon and their influence on the earth. The European scholars say: That's all nonsense, what they say! But when you come to it yourself, you no longer say that it is nonsense, but you are just amazed at what these old minds knew many thousands of years ago, and what has been lost to humanity again! It is even a great impression that one can get: one researches these things oneself with tremendous effort, and then one comes to the conclusion that it has already been known before, and only in a way that is incomprehensible today, sometimes even not understood by those who say it, has come down from ancient times. So one can certainly have a certain respect, a great respect, a great esteem for what was once there.

Now, if the Europeans want to do something in Asia, it would be necessary for them to start by studying anthroposophy! Otherwise they will not be allowed to do anything there. Contemporary European science and technology do not impress the Asians, for they regard contemporary European science as childish, as something that only deals with outward appearances, and they have no need for outward European technology. They say, “Why should we slave at machines? That is inhumane!” They don't find it impressive at all, and they see it as an infringement of their rights when railways and factories are built over there; that's what the Europeans are doing. But they actually hate that over there. So you can't go about it that way either. You also have to learn something from the old days. And in the old days, people actually had a certain spirit for how to proceed.

Do you see why today's European culture should not be able to do something in Asia? After all, one person did manage to do something in Asia with Greek culture! That was in the 4th century BC, before the founding of Christianity: Alexander the Great succeeded. Alexander the Great did manage to bring much of Greek culture to Asia. That is now there inside. What Alexander brought to Asia has even come back to Europe in a roundabout way, through Spain, the Arabs and the Jews! But how did Alexander the Great manage to bring these things to Asia at all? Only by not proceeding as today's Europeans do. Europeans consider themselves the clever people, the absolutely clever people. When they go somewhere else, they say: they are all stupid; so we have to bring them our wisdom. Yes, but the others can't do anything with that. Alexander didn't do that; instead, he first entered into what the people had. He only very slowly, in a small way, let something of his flow into what the others had, appreciated and respected what the others had.

And that is the secret of all successful endeavor: to bring something to the situation. Despite all the things that can be said against the English, despite the fact that it is a sad chapter in English history, for example, that the English brought opium to China out of pure selfishness in order to make money from it, and despite all the other can be said against the English, one must still say this: not exactly in the intellectual realm, but even there – but especially in the economic realm, the English always know to respect what is customary among the peoples to whom they come. They simply know how to respect that! The Germans, for example, respect that the least. The Germans are therefore unhappy in all colonization because they do not even think about what it looks like for the people where they want to have their colonies. They are supposed to adopt what the Germans themselves have in the middle of Europe, head over heels! Of course that doesn't work. That is why it is the case that development has taken this path: England is happy to maintain its colonies, even when the colonists revolt and do all sorts of things – economically, England always retains the upper hand. So the English do understand how to respond to the nature and character of foreign peoples. The English also wage war quite differently from the way the Germans wage war, for example. How does a German imagine waging war against a people? I do not want to speak out against war, but just tell how the Germans imagine it: Well, you just have to go and defeat this nation. The English do not do that, but they watch first, rather they stir up another nation and let them smash each other, and they watch as long as it possibly can, that is, they let the people finish each other. That is how history has always been. That is precisely how this English empire was founded. The others, don't they, never really know which way the wind is blowing. The English have a certain instinct for respecting the peculiarities of foreign peoples. That is why the English have succeeded in achieving such colossal economic superiority. In England, it would certainly never have occurred to anyone to do what has now been done in Germany, namely to introduce the Rentenmark. Of course, there is now a huge shortage of money in Germany. Nobody has any money. But when the Rentenmarks were issued – the so-called stable-value money – people saw it as something terribly clever! Of course, it was the stupidest thing that could have been done. Because as long as every paper money in England is covered by gold, there is no way around it, economically, than to do the same all over the world: to have gold backing for every paper money. If you create money for which there is no gold backing, then this money must either immediately decrease in value, that is, the exchange rate must fall, or if you do it artificially, as you are doing now with the stable-value money, then the goods will become all the more expensive. Isn't that right, now you have a Rentenmark in Germany; it is always worth a Mark. Yes, but, gentlemen, you only get as much as you used to get for fifteen pfennigs, so in reality it is still not worth more than fifteen pfennigs. That it does not fall, that it has “stable value”, that is just an illusion. And so it is: one thinks in Germany, but one has no sense of observing the realities.

You see, there is a very nice anecdote about how different nations study natural history, say, for example, of a kangaroo or some other animal that is in Africa. The Englishman goes to Africa – just as Darwin, in fact, in order to come to natural science, made his trip around the world – and looks at the animal where it really lives. There he can see how it lives, what its natural conditions are. The Frenchman takes this animal from the desert to the zoological garden. He studies it in the zoological garden; he does not observe the animal in its natural environment, but in the zoological garden. But what does the German do? He doesn't care about the animal at all, what it looks like, but he sits down in his study and starts thinking. He is not interested in the thing itself - according to Kantian philosophy, as I told you the other day - but only in what is in his head. Then he thinks about something long enough. And after thinking about it long enough, he says something. But that doesn't correspond to reality.

But this is only relative with regard to the English. For the way in which people in ancient times influenced people is no longer understood in Europe today - how Alexander the Great apparently left everything as it was and only very gradually and slowly did what he had to bring from Greece to Asia. This is no longer understood in Europe. But the Europeans would have to get used to it again. Therefore, the first thing the Europeans would have to learn is not just to carry over to Asia what they already have, but above all, the Europeans should learn very carefully what the Asians know; then they would know, for example, what Tibetan wisdom is. Then they would not tell people in the old way, but in the new way, but would use what Tibetan wisdom is. And then, if they respected the culture of others, they would achieve something with it. That is what Europe must learn right now. Europe is actually a large theoretical structure. Europe theorizes, but basically has no practice. It is true! Europe also does business in a theoretical way, just by thinking things up. That works for a while. It is not always possible in the long run. But Europe is particularly unhappy in the spread of spiritual culture because it does not understand how to engage with others. Here, too, spiritual science must bring about a change of heart. But how can that be done today? You see, gentlemen, the point of anthroposophy is to act in the spirit of a true practice of life. Well, you have to start somewhere. What have I done myself, gentlemen? I once wrote about Nietzsche - and people believed that I was now a follower of Nietzsche. If I had written as people would have wanted me to after some of my views, I would have written: Nietzsche is a great fool, Nietzsche has asserted this and that folly, one must fight Nietzsche to the death, and so on. I would have written a pamphlet against Nietzsche; I could have ranted almost as much as Nietzsche himself ranted, but it would have been of no use at all! I took up Nietzsche's teaching; I presented what Nietzsche himself said and only let Anthroposophy flow into it. Today people come and say: He used to be a Nietzschean, now he is an Anthroposophist. - Precisely because I am an Anthroposophist, it has been written about Nietzsche as it has been written by me! Then I wrote about Haeckel in the same way. Of course I could have written: Haeckel is a blatant materialist who understands nothing about the spirit and so on. Yes, gentlemen, in that case nothing would have been done; but I took Haeckel as he is, and did the same with everything. I did not deny the facts, but took things as they are. And so, at least through anthroposophy, we have a beginning of what we must do if we are to carry culture over to Asia! Above all, one would have to know exactly what the ancient Brahmins claimed and what the Buddhists claim. One would then have to present Buddhism and Brahmanism to the people, but also incorporate what one considers to be correct. This is how, for example, the disciples of Buddha himself did it. Shortly before the emergence of Christianity, Buddha's disciples spread Buddhism in Babylon, over by the Euphrates and Tigris, but in the way I have just described to you, by speaking to people in such a way that they could understand something. In ancient times, it was not at all a matter of pushing through theories just for the sake of being stubborn. The Asians do not understand European obstinacy at all. It is quite the case that, for example, the relationship between the Brahmins and the Buddhists is not the same as that between Catholics and Protestants. Today, Catholics and Protestants teach their doctrines in a purely theoretical way: one believes this, the other something else. There is hardly any other difference between the Brahmins and the Buddhists than that the Brahmins do not worship the Buddha and the Buddhists do. And so they actually get along with each other in a completely different way than Protestants and Catholics get along with each other in Europe.

It is now the case that you have to have a sense of reality if you want to spread culture! I would say that you can literally sweat blood when you see how Europeans are doing business in Asia today. In the process, everything that Asia has is destroyed, and nothing comes of it. Now, of course, the real misery is that Europe itself is in misery and that it is very difficult to imagine how Europe is to get out of this misery. The great misery of this is that Europe itself is now in decline, that Europe cannot really get out of all the cultural damage it is in unless people decide to embrace a real spiritual culture. Many still do not believe this today. And so it is the case today that all the people who have come to Europe from Asia, for example, have really found: These Europeans are actually all barbarians.

You have probably also heard that all sorts of Asians, cultured Asians, clever Asians, are wandering around Europe; but they all think that the Europeans are actually barbarians. And they have this opinion because so much of the old science of the spirit, of the old knowledge of the spirit, has been preserved in Asia that what the Europeans know seems childish to them. Everything that is so admired in Europe seems terribly childish to people in Asia!

You see, the Europeans have developed in such a way that even their great technical advances are actually all terribly young. For example, it is interesting that when you go to certain museums where there are remains from ancient European times, you can sometimes be terribly amazed. You can be amazed, for example, in Etruscan museums, where the remains of what was Etruscan culture are, a culture that once existed in Europe, at how skilled people were, for example, in dental treatment. They were already treating teeth quite skilfully, inserting a kind of filling, and that was made of stone! All this was lost in Europe, and a barbarism really did occur in Europe. By the time we speak of the migration of peoples – in the 3rd to 7th centuries AD – everything in Europe had actually been barbarized. And it was only after this time that things were conquered again. Of course, today we are terribly surprised at all the things that have been achieved! But they were already there once. Where did they come from back then? Back then they more or less came over from Asia! The Asians then also lost the external technology they had. The Chinese still have some of it. But in spiritual culture itself, the Asians are in fact still ahead of the Europeans today. And if we in Europe can't find anything better than what the Asians have in spiritual culture, why then should we have missions and the like in Asia at all? That is not necessary at all!

So the spread of culture in Asia only makes sense again when Europe itself has a spiritual science. If Europe can give Asians spiritual science, then perhaps the Asians will also accept that European technology be brought to them. But now, don't they just realize that the Europeans don't know anything except this technology. And it is precisely the case among Asians that it makes a great impression on them when, for example, they come to Germany - when a real Asian, who is educated, learned, comes to Germany today; it has been seen, for example, in well-educated Chinese scholars: when they come to Germany and they are told about Goethe and Schiller - they pay attention! The scholar says, “Yes, Goethe and Schiller were not as clever, not as wise as the old Asian personalities were, but still, there was something of spirituality.” But in the 19th century, all that quickly diminished, all that quickly disappeared. And today, the Chinese scholar sees in the German, for example, a terrible barbarian. He says, “With Goethe and Schiller, German culture has perished.” The fact that the railroad was invented in the 19th century does not impress him. He is still somewhat impressed by Goethe's Faust, but he still maintains that his great Asian personalities were much wiser. This is something that the European must realize first of all. He should realize that the Asian does not care about such concepts as the European has; he does not care about them at all, but the Asian wants images, like the images in the monasteries of Tibet. The Asian wants images. These abstractions, these concepts that the European has, the Asian does not want them, they hurt his brain, he does not want them.

And a symbol like the swastika, for example, the so-called swastika – this symbol was an ancient sun symbol – it was widespread throughout Asia. The old Asians still remember that. Certain Bolshevik government officials were clever enough to use this ancient swastika as their symbol, just like the German nationalists. This makes a much greater impression on the Asians than anything that Marxism is. Marxism consists of concepts for thinking; that does not impress people. But such a sign does impress people. And if you don't understand the people, if you don't engage with them, but come to them with something that is completely alien to them, then you will achieve absolutely nothing among them.

So it is that here too it is shown that in Europe everything depends on having spiritual knowledge, a spiritual science.

Perhaps you have also heard that a large two-volume book has been published by a certain Spengler – I have heard that he even gave a lecture in Basel once – a book by Oswald Spengler: 'The Decline of the West', that is, the decline of Europe and America. The man shows how everything that is now there in so-called European culture must perish. That is obvious. He regards it as sick, it must perish. Well, gentlemen, what is there today in external culture must also perish. Something new must be built from within, from the spirit. But the external must perish. That is why the book is about the decline of the West. You can hardly say anything against the book, against what he says about the decline of the West, about what is necessarily said in terms of outward appearances. But now the Spengler comes to what he regards positively, what presents itself to him as new. And what does he show, gentlemen? What is that in Oswald Spengler? That is Prussianism! So that all of Europe must adopt Prussianism; that must be the culture of Europe's future, Spengler believes.

Well, I don't know what he said in Basel, because I can't imagine that it would have made a big impression on the Swiss if he had shown that Prussianism must come out of this downfall! But you see that a very important person, a clever person, like Spengler, can very well see: yes, what is there must perish; but the future must be one of brutal force. He says this quite openly: in the future there can only be the brutal, powerful conqueror – that is what he means.

Now, if the most widely read book is one of the most widely read books in Germany is of course one of the most widely read books in Germany, that of Oswald Spengler - and the Oriental, the Asian, compares what is in it with his own intellectual culture, and has to say to himself: That is one of the smartest people in Europe! And then he considers his own highly developed spiritual science, albeit in a fantastic, ancient way, and says: Yes, what kind of people are these, these most intelligent people in Europe? They can't bring us anything!

Well, gentlemen, I now have to go on a trip to Paris; I will let you know when we will continue this matter.

Have you found something you want to ask, gentlemen?

Question: How are the sun's rays created? Are they a substance? And how is it that they fall on the earth in an arc?

Dr. Steiner: You don't mean that the sun's rays are a reality, do you? And why you think that they fall in an arc, you can perhaps explain something else.

The questioner says that he has heard that they do not fall straight down onto the earth, but in an arc.

Dr. Steiner: The thing is this: the sun's rays, as we see them, are not actually reality; rather, when we look at the sun as such, it is not actually a physical substance, it is actually spiritual and consists of a hollow space in space.

Now, you just have to imagine what such a hollow in space means. If you have a bottle of Selters water, as I have used the comparison before, then the bottle is filled with water, and you can hardly see the water; you know that there is water in it, but you can see very clearly the bubbles that are in there. But you know that if you pour out the water, the bubbles will disappear; they are actually air. As air, they are thinner than water. You don't see something that is denser than water, but you see the thinner part of the air in it. It is the same with the sun above. Everything around the sun is actually denser than the sun, and the sun is thinner than what is around the sun; that's why you see the sun. So it is an illusion to believe that the sun is something in space, so to speak. There is actually nothing there; there is a big hole, just as there is a hole in the seltzer water wherever there is a pearl, wherever there is air.

From this you can already see: It cannot be that rays emanate from the hole. The rays arise in a completely different way. You can visualize this in the following way. Suppose you have a street lamp; there is light inside this street lamp. If you are walking on the street and looking at this lantern, and it is a fairly bright evening, you will see the lantern with a firm, beautiful shine. But consider this: if it is a foggy evening, with fog all around, it will seem as if rays are emanating from the lantern, from the light! So you see the rays inside. You just don't see the rays from the light, otherwise you would also have to see the rays on a really good evening. But they come from what is all around; and the more fog there is, the more you see the rays. That is why you do not see the sun's rays as reality, but as something where you look through a fog at something less dense, into an emptiness. Do you understand?

But now further: When one looks through a mist into the distance, then the object that one sees always appears at a different location than where it actually is. If you are standing here on earth and you look through the air at the sun, which is actually empty, then, as you look, the sun will appear to be lower than where it actually is – then it will appear to be lower in the emptiness of space. As a result, something that has no reality anyway appears as if it were bent out of shape. So it is actually only because you are looking through the fog. That is the reality in this case. One must always marvel anew that today's physicists depict things as if there were a sun and rays emanating from it, while neither the sun nor the rays have any external physical reality. And in the space that is empty, there is indeed spiritual substance. And that is what must always be taken into account. That is what I can say in relation to this question.

Perhaps someone can think of something else.

Question: Could we hear something about Freemasonry and its purpose?

Dr. Steiner: Well, you see, gentlemen, today's Freemasonry is actually, one could say, only a shadow of what it once was. I have also spoken here on various occasions about the fact that in the very early days of human development there were no schools like those of today, nor churches like those of today, nor art institutions like those of today, but all of this was one. In the ancient mysteries, as they were called, there was the school, the art institution and the religion at the same time. This only diverged later. So that it actually became so for our Central European regions, one could even say, only in the 11th, 12th century; in former times the monasteries were, I would say, a memory of the old times. But in very ancient times, school, church and art institutions were one and the same thing. It was the case, however, that in the mysteries everything that was done there was taken much more seriously than it is taken today, for example, in our schools and also in our churches.

The situation in those days was that one had to prepare for a long time before one was allowed to learn. Today, basically, whether one can learn something or not is decided by a principle that has nothing to do with learning. Isn't it true that today the only thing that really matters is whether the person in question can afford to learn or not! Of course, this is something that has nothing to do with the abilities of the person concerned. And the situation was quite different in ancient times. Among all of humanity, those who were the most capable were selected – and people had a better eye for this than they do today. Of course, the system fell into decline almost everywhere because people are selfish by nature, but originally the principle was to select those who had abilities. And only then were they entitled to learn spiritually – not simply through drilling and training and elements, as taught today, but they were able to learn spiritually.

But this spiritual learning is linked to the fact that in preparation, one learns to develop very specific abilities. You just have to bear in mind that in ordinary life, when you touch something, you actually have a rough sensation of it; and the most that people achieve today is that they can sometimes distinguish substances from one another in their sensation, that they feel things in this way and distinguish something in their sensation. But people today are actually quite rough in their perception - I mean, in their purely physical perception; they distinguish between warmth and cold. At most, people who depend on it can develop a more refined sense of perception. The blind, for example. There are blind people who learn to feel the letterforms when they run their fingers over the paper. Each letter is, after all, engraved a little into the paper. If the feeling in the fingers is developed finely, one can already feel the letters a little. These are the only people who today learn to feel and sense more subtly. As a rule, the feeling is not developed at all, but one learns an enormous amount if one develops the feeling, and especially the feeling in the fingertips and in the fingers, very finely. Today, people do not just distinguish between warmth and cold through feeling. Yes, he can, because he can read the thermometer; the subtle differences in heat and cold become visible to him. But the thermometer was only invented over time. Before that, people only had their feelings. In the Mystery preparations, feelings were particularly developed at the beginning, especially in the fingers and fingertips. And it was the case that one learned to feel in the finest way.

So who was it in the mysteries who was the first to be prepared to feel very finely? Well, the other people could not feel so finely. Now suppose there was a mystery somewhere else. People traveled a lot in ancient times; they traveled almost as much as we do, and sometimes we are amazed at how fast they traveled. They didn't have a railroad; but they traveled because they were nimble, could walk faster, got less tired, walked a little better, and so on. And now they met on the way, such people. Yes, when two such people, who could feel subtly, shook hands, they recognized each other by that, and it was said: They recognize each other by their subtler feeling. That is what is called the grip - the grip when one gripped the other in ancient times and one recognized that he had a subtler feeling.

Now, gentlemen, consider the second point: once it was recognized that someone had a fine perception, then one went further, because one learned even more. In ancient times, people did not write as much as they do today; they actually only rarely wrote down the most important things. However, there was already a kind of correspondence in ancient times; but this correspondence was also more in all sorts of signs. And so many signs came into being for all sorts of things. It was also the case that people who did not belong to the mysteries, who were not the wise men, as they were called, only traveled in a smaller area when they traveled; they did not get very far. But the scholars, the wise men, traveled a great deal. They should have known not only all languages, but also all dialects. Of course, it is difficult even for a North German to speak Swiss German. But for these people, in addition to the language they spoke, there were certain signs for all the things that interested them in the mysteries. They made signs. For example, let's say that the usual gesture that one already has in one's mind was further developed: I understand –; or: That's not what you're telling me –; or: We understand each other well. – You drew the cross inside. So that there was a fully developed sign language precisely among the ancient sages, and everything that was known was contained in such signs. So you can see: All the people who were in the high schools of the time, in the mysteries, had certain signs for everything. Let's say, for example, that they wanted to record these signs. Then they painted them on. This is how the painted signs came about.

It is interesting that there are still certain writings today that clearly show that they originated from signs. This is, for example, the old script of the Indians, the Sanskrit script. In this script, you can see everywhere that everything has emerged from the curved and the straight line. Curved lines: dissatisfaction with something, antipathy; straight lines: sympathy. Just think about it: someone knows that straight lines mean sympathy and crooked lines mean antipathy. Now I want to tell him something. I also have my sign for that. He wants to tell me something; that can go well at the beginning, but later it can go badly. You see, it's still going well; later he draws a wavy line: then it can go badly. And so they had certain signs for everything. Those who were initiated into the mysteries would use these signs to communicate with each other. So the sign was used to access the handle.

Now, something very special was seen in the words in the past. You see, when a person speaks words today, he actually has no idea what the words are. But you can still feel something that is already contained in the sounds. You will easily be able to feel when someone is in a certain situation and he starts: A - that has something to do with amazement. A - the letter A is wonder. Now take the letter R: in it lies rolling, radiance: R = radiance. A = wonder, R = rolling, radiance.

Now, however, we know what we just said about the sun's rays. But even if the sun's rays are apparent, if they are not reality, it looks as if they are flowing. Now imagine someone wants to say: There is something up there that throws something at me here on earth, which, when it appears to me in the morning, causes amazement. He expresses the amazement with A, but that it comes from above, with R; he expresses that with: RA. Yes, that is what the ancient Egyptians called the sun god: Ra! Each of these letters contains a feeling, and we have put the letters together to form words. So there was a very broad sense to it. This has long been forgotten today. You can feel something like that in different things. Take, for example, I. This is something like a quiet joy; you come to terms with what you experience and perceive: I. That is why laughter is also expressed with hihi. That is a quiet joy. So each letter has something specific in it. And there is a knowledge through which you can almost form the words if you have an understanding of the sounds that are within the words.

Now you will say one thing, gentlemen: Yes, then, if that were the case, there could actually only be one language! Originally there was also one language among humanity; when one still had a feeling for these sounds, these letters, there was only one language. The languages then became different when people dispersed. But originally people sensed this, and in the mysteries it was taught correctly how to sense sounds, letters, and how to make words out of them. Therefore there was a language of its own in the mysteries. This language, everyone spoke among themselves. They did not speak the dialects among themselves, but this language everyone understood. If one said Ra, the other knew that this is the sun. If someone says, for example, E - just feel it: I recoil from something, it doesn't suit me; E = I have a slight fear, something like dread! Now take L: that is how something disappears, how something flows, and EL, yes, that is something that flows towards you and makes you recoil, makes you afraid. Thus in Babylon El = God was called. Thus everything was designated according to this principle. Or take the Bible: when you say: O - that is a sudden amazement, a sudden amazement that you cannot overcome. With the A - there you have a feeling that you like, an amazement that you like; O - there you want to step back; H, Ch is the breath. So that one can say: O = recoiling amazement; H = breath; I = one points to it, one is pleased about it, it is quiet joy = I. And M, that is: one wants to go into it oneself. You feel when you pronounce M: M - the breath goes out, and one feels that one is literally running after the breath; M is therefore: going away. Now let's put this together: El, we have already seen that, is the spirit coming from the wind; O = that is the recoiling amazement, H = the breath; so that is already the finer spirit that works as breath; I is the quiet joy; M is the going. There you have Elohim, with which the Bible begins; there you have these sounds in it. So that one can say: What are the Elohim? – The Elohim are beings in the wind that one is somewhat afraid of, that one shies away from a little, but that through breathing bring joy to people, and in turning towards people bring joy: Elohim. And so originally one studies in the words according to the sounds, according to the letters, what the words actually mean. Today people no longer sense what it is actually like.

What is the plural of “carriage” here in Switzerland? Do we say “carriage” here too, or do we say “carriages”? (Answer: “Carriages”! This answer is wrong. The Swiss German is “Wäge”, as Dr. Steiner suspected.) - We still say “carriage”. So there it is already confused; the original would be: “the carriage”, “the carriages”! We have a wide variety of plurals, for example, der Bruder, die Brüder. But that's the same in Switzerland! You don't say “the brothers,” do you? So it's: der Bruder, die Brüder. Or we say: das Holz, die Hölzer. You don't say “the woodworkers,” do you? It's: das Holz, die Hölzer. You see, gentlemen, when the plural is formed, the umlaut is formed: ainä, uinü, oinö. Why does that happen? Yes, the umlaut expresses that the thing becomes unclear! When I see one brother, he is clearly there as a person; when I see several brothers, it becomes unclear, and I have to distinguish one from the other, and if I cannot do that, it becomes unclear. You have to look at one after the other. The lack of clarity is indicated everywhere by the umlaut. So wherever there is an umlaut in a word, something is unclear.

There is something in language by which you can actually recognize the whole person; there is the whole person. And so people also expressed how certain meanings already lay within the letters that were written down, within these signs. A was always astonishment. When the old Jew wrote down x like this, he said to himself: Who is astonished in the world? The animals are not really surprised, only man. That is why he called man in general: amazement. When he wrote down his Aleph, the x, the Hebrew A, it also meant man.

And so it was that each letter also meant a specific thing or being. All this was known to the people who were initiated into the mysteries. So if someone travelled and met another, and they had the same knowledge, they recognized each other by the word. So you can say: In the old days, it was so that people who had studied something, who knew a lot, recognized each other by touch, sign and word. Yes, but, gentlemen, there was something in it! All learning was really contained in these signs, gestures and words. Because by learning to feel, one learned to distinguish objects. By having the signs, one had an imitation of all that was a natural secret. And in the word, one came to know the inner human being. So you can say: in the grip you had perception; in the sign you had nature, and in the word you had the human being, his inner wonder or his recoil, his joy and so on. So you had nature and man and you reproduced it in signs, grips and words.

Now, in the course of human development, what emerged on the one hand was divided into the university and later into schools, and on the other hand into the church and into art. None of the three understood what was originally present; and grip, sign and word were completely lost. Only those who had then realized: Gosh, those old sages, they had a certain power because they knew that! It is a justified power that a person has when he knows something, because it benefits his fellow human beings; if no one knew how to make a locomotive, humanity would never have one! So when someone knows something, it benefits people; that is a justified power. But later on people simply appropriated the power by copying the outward signs. Just as these or those signs once meant something in the past and later on the meaning was lost, so all that has lost its meaning. And then, I might say, by imitating the old mysteries, all sorts of things were formed in which you only have the outward form. What did people do? They no longer had the subtle perception, but they agreed on a sign by which they would recognize each other. They shake hands in a certain way, by which one knows: he belongs to this association. They recognized each other by the handshake. Then they make another sign in some way. The sign and the handshake are different, depending on whether one is in the first, second or third degree. That is how people recognize each other. But it is nothing more than just a sign of recognition. And in the same way, they have certain words for each degree, which they can pronounce in certain Masonic lodges; let us say, for the first degree, for example, if you want to know: what is the word? - [the password] Jachin. We know that he learned the word Jachin in the Masonic lodge, otherwise he would not have been initiated into the first degree. It is only a password. And then he also makes the sign and so on.

Now, actually, this kind of Freemasonry has only developed when everything else from the mysteries was forgotten; and some of the old things that were no longer understood were imitated. So that what Freemasonry has adopted of the cult is mostly no longer understood by Freemasons today; they also do not understand the sign, grip and word because they do not know what it is all about. They do not know, for example, that when they speak the word of the second degree from Table 21: Boaz, that the B is as much as a house; O is, as I told you, this restrained wonder; A: that is the pleasant amazement; $ is the sign for the snake. With that you have expressed: We recognize the world as that which is a great house, built by the great architect of the world, at which one must marvel both anxiously and comfortably, and in which there is also evil, the snake. Yes, people knew about such things in ancient times; they looked at nature and saw these things, looked at people and saw these things. Today, in certain Masonic orders, those who have completed the second degree pronounce the word 'Boaz' without realizing its significance. Similarly, if in the third degree people put their fingers on the pulse, it really meant that they had recognized that the person had a fine intuitive perception. You could tell by the way the finger was placed on the pulse. Later, this became the third degree. Today, people just know when someone comes and takes their hand like that: that's a Freemason. So in these things there is actually something old, venerable, great, something in which all earlier learning lay; now this has been completely reduced to formulaic emptiness. So that today the Freemasons have such things; they also have ceremonies, a cult: that is still from the times when everything was also shown in a cult, in ceremonies, so that it was more forceful for people. The Freemasons still do that today. So that in this inward relationship the Masonic order really no longer has any significance.

But for many people, going through with such covenants when they were established was terribly boring, because it actually degenerated into a kind of gimmick. So something was needed that could be poured into Freemasonry. And that's why the Freemasons became more or less political, or again more or less spread religious enlightenment teachings. The unenlightened Roman doctrine was administered by Rome. The doctrine that opposed Rome was then spread by Freemasonry. Therefore, Rome, the Roman cult and Freemasonry are the very greatest opponents. This is no longer connected with what the cult, sign, grip and word were in the Freemasons, but that just came in between. In France, the union was not called a union, but “Orient de France”, because everything was taken from the Orient - “Grand Orient de France”, that is the great French Masonic union. The other things, the signs, the grips and the words, are only there to keep the people together, they are the means by which they recognize each other. The joint worship is where they come together under particularly solemn circumstances; just as others come together in the church, so these Freemasons come together under ceremonies that come from the ancient mysteries. That is what keeps the people together.

It was also common, especially in Italy at certain times, when political secret societies were formed, to recognize and come together through certain ceremonies, signs and grips. Political alliances and political associations have always been linked to this ancient mystery knowledge. And today, once again, it is quite remarkable: if you go to certain Polish and Austrian areas today, you will find posters; on these posters are strange signs and strange letters that then combine into words; at first you not know what the poster means at first – but such a poster, which is everywhere in Polish and Austrian areas today, is the outward sign of an alliance formed by certain nationalist sides among the youth. The same things are being done there. It is actually widespread, and people know very well that the sign also has a certain strong power. There are associations, the German-Volkish, for example, they have an old Indian sign: two snakes entwined, or also, if you will, a wheel, which then transformed into the swastika. They have it today as a badge. And you will often hear that the swastika is adopted as a sign for certain chauvinistic nationalistic circles. This is because of the tradition that the ancients expressed their rule through such signs. And so it has always been on a large scale in the Freemasons' Association. The Freemasons' Association actually exists to keep certain people together, and it does this through ceremonies, signs, grips and words. And then it pursues secret aims by keeping certain secrets among all those who are connected under these ceremonies, signs, grip and word. Of course, secret aims can only be pursued if they do not all know; and so it is with the Masonic federations that they often pursue political or cultural and similar aims.

But now you can say one more thing, gentlemen. You see, the people who are connected in Masonic associations are by no means to be challenged because of that, but sometimes they have the very best and noblest intentions; they are only of the opinion that you cannot win people over to something other than through such alliances, and therefore most Masonic associations also have the purpose of practicing charity on a large scale. That is all well and good, to practice charity and humanity. This is also something that is practiced on a large scale by these associations. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Freemason can always point out that an awful lot of extraordinary humanitarian and charitable work is founded and established precisely by the Masonic associations. You just have to say to yourself: in this day and age, all such things are actually no longer in keeping with the times. Because, right, what do we have to reject most today in such things? We have to reject isolation. This also leads to the emergence of a spiritual aristocracy, which should not exist. And the democratic principle, which must be applied more and more, is actually completely opposed to the Masonic alliance as well as to the closed priesthoods. So that one can say: It is already the case that anyone who is still able to understand today what is contained in some Masonic ceremonies for the first, second and third degrees, can recognize in what the Freemasons themselves often do not understand that they often go back to very ancient wisdom; but this is not the main significance. The great significance is that today many Masonic associations, alliances, are actually home to many political or other social charitable endeavors. But the Catholic Church and the Freemasons fight each other tooth and nail. However, this has only developed over time.

Now, of course, it is very easy to mistake such things. And it has also occurred: the Freemasons have a certain clothing for their ceremonies; for example, they have a lambskin apron. Some have said: Freemasonry is nothing more than a game with the masonry trade because the mason has a lambskin apron. But that is not true. And the apron that is there is there to show – and it has always originally been made of lambskin – that the one who is in such covenants should not be a raging fellow in terms of the passions; so the genitals are to be covered with his apron, and that is the sign of it. So it was something that expressed the human character in signs. And so it is with very many signs that also lie in clothing.

Then there are also higher degrees where a garment similar to a priest's is worn; there every single detail has a meaning. For example, I have told you that man, in addition to the physical body, also has an etheric body. And just as the priest has a white linen garment, a shirt-like robe, to express the etheric body, so too certain high degrees of the Freemasons have such a garment, and for the astral body - it is colored - there is a toga, an outer garment; all this expresses it. And the mantle, which was then associated with the helmet, expressed the power of the ego.

All these things lead back to old, very ingenious, significant customs that have lost their meaning today. If someone likes Freemasonry, they should not take what I have said as a disparaging comment. I just wanted to explain how things are. Of course, there may be an order of Freemasons that brings together exceptionally good people and so on. And in today's world, something like that can be particularly important. Really, what most people learn today when they become doctors or lawyers – yes, that does not capture their hearts. And that is why many lawyers and doctors still become Freemasons, because at least they then have the solemnity of the old ceremonies and something that no longer allows them much to think about, but which is still something: sign, grip and word, but which indicates that man does not live only in the external material.

That is what I wanted to tell you. Do you have anything else you would like to ask?

Question: In America there is something called the Ku Klux Klan. What about it? Can we hear from Dr. Steiner about what it means? You read about it all the time.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, you see, the Ku-Klux-Klan is one of the newest inventions in this area, and it is an invention that should be taken more seriously than it is usually taken. You know, gentlemen, that only a few decades ago there was actually enthusiasm for a certain cosmopolitanism. Today it is still there, of course, among the working class, among social democracy - these are an international element - but in bourgeois circles and in other circles, nationalism is getting terribly out of hand, and the mood for nationalism is certainly strong. And you will also remember that those people who stood behind Woodrow Wilson – he himself was only a kind of front man – actually counted on this nationalism, wanted to have national states everywhere, wanted to incite nationalism everywhere, and so on. Yes, one can have one's own views about that! But now there are people everywhere who are developing the tendency to take nationalism to the extreme. And it was precisely in this endeavor to take nationalism to the extreme that the Ku Klux Klan was formed in America. It now works with methods such as signs, in the sense I have described.

If you are considering such connections, then you have to know that signs also have a certain hypnotic power. You know, if you have a chicken (it is drawn), if you let the chicken poke the ground with its beak, and you draw a chalk line from there, the chicken will follow the chalk line! It is hypnotized, it follows the line! You just have to poke the beak at the beginning, then it will follow the chalk line because it is hypnotized by the line. So every sign has a meaning, not only the straight line for the chicken, a certain soporific meaning, if you look for it. And that is used by certain secret societies to choose just such signs, through which they beguile the other person, put him to sleep, so that he does not assert his own judgment. And such means are used by such secret societies in particular. In America, the Ku-Klux-Klan belongs to this group. Now the Ku Klux Klan is dangerous because such associations do not just target one nation, but they want to have the nationalist principle everywhere. No one can say: the Ku Klux Klan need only remain an American institution because it particularly wants to promote American nationalism. The Ku Klux Klan supporter does not say that; instead, he says: nationalism should be promoted in general, so in Hungary, in Germany, in France. - Very well! He is not concerned with Americanism; he is not a patriot, but he sees in this insistence of people on nationalism something which, when it then interacts with the most diverse nations, then achieves what he wants to achieve: namely, to bring people absolutely into chaos. That is what he wants: he wants to bring everything into chaos! There is pure destructive rage in it. And so the Ku Klux Klan is particularly dangerous because it can spread in all countries. And you cannot say that if it wants to spread here in Switzerland, it is an American institution, but rather it is a national Swiss institution.

And so were basically the Masonic alliances; they were international, but for the individual countries always nationalist. But they did not pay much attention to that, but they did it more to the outside world, that they joined in with what was going on in the outside world. And now one can say: But are not such people actually insane, who want to stir up something like an absolutely nationalist principle, and who want to destroy everything there? You can't really say that either. Of course, when you ask, it is said: Of course you don't do such things. But people say to themselves: It's all so corrupt today – the leaders say this to the others who follow – it's all the same to the others, so it makes no sense to cultivate the things that are there today. You first have to treat humanity like a confused mass. Then people will come to their senses again, and then they will learn something proper. People do have an idea, namely the Ku Klux Klan has an idea in this regard.

You mean: not?

The questioner: Yes! But that's strange!

Dr. Steiner: You see, many things in cultural life are strange, and we have already mentioned things that looked strange. But the strange is sometimes quite dangerous. It seems strange to you, but sometimes it is extraordinarily dangerous.

Well, gentlemen, tomorrow during the day I have to travel again – to Breslau. I will then say when we will have the next lesson.

Vielleicht fällt jemandem noch etwas anderes ein?

Frage: Könnte man etwas hören über die Freimaurerei und ihren Zweck?

Dr. Steiner: Nun, sehen Sie, meine Herren, die heutige Freimaurerei, die ist eigentlich, man könnte sagen, nur der Schatten dessen, was sie einmal war. Ich habe hier auch schon verschiedentlich davon geredet, daß es in sehr alten Zeiten der Menschheitsentwickelung nicht solche Schulen gab wie heute, auch nicht solche Kirchen und auch nicht solche Kunstanstalten, sondern das war alles eins. In den alten Mysterien, wie man es nannte, war zugleich die Schule, die Kunstanstalt und die Religion. Das ist erst später auseinandergegangen. So daß es eigentlich für unsere mitteleuropäischen Gegenden, man könnte sogar sagen, erst im 11., 12. Jahrhundert so geworden ist; früher waren die Klöster, ich möchte sagen, ein Andenken an die alte Zeit. Aber in ganz alten Zeiten war das so, daß Schule, Kirche und Kunstanstalten eines waren. Es war aber so, daß in den Mysterien alles das, was da getrieben wurde, viel ernster genommen worden ist als heute zum Beispiel in unseren Schulen und auch in unseren Kirchen die Sachen genommen werden.

Die Sache ist nämlich damals so gewesen, daß man lange Zeit hat vorbereitet werden müssen, bis man hat lernen dürfen. Heute entscheidet ja im Grunde genommen, ob man etwas lernen kann oder nicht, wirklich ein Prinzip, das gar nichts zu tun hat mit dem Lernen. Nicht wahr, heute entscheidet eigentlich nur das, ob für den Betreffenden, der lernen soll, das Geld aufgebracht werden kann oder nicht aufgebracht werden kann! Das ist natürlich etwas, was gar nichts zu tun hat mit den Fähigkeiten, die der Betreffende hat. Und ganz anders nun war die Sache in alten Zeiten. Da hat man unter der ganzen Menschheit diejenigen ausgesucht - man hat einen besseren Blick auch dafür gehabt als heute -, die etwa die Fähigsten waren. Natürlich ist die Sache dann fast überall, weil die Menschen schon einmal egoistisch sind, in Verfall geraten; aber das Prinzip war ursprünglich dies, daß man diejenigen aussuchte, die Fähigkeiten hatten. Und die wurden dann erst dazu berechtigt, daß sie geistig lernen konnten - nicht einfach durch Drill und durch Dressur und durch Elemente, wie heute gelehrt wird, sondern die konnten geistig lernen.

Dieses geistige Lernen, das ist nun aber damit verknüpft, daß man in der Vorbereitung lernt, ganz bestimmte Fähigkeiten auszubilden. Sie müssen nur bedenken, wenn man im gewöhnlichen Leben irgend etwas angreift, so hat man eigentlich eine grobe Empfindung davon; und das Äußerste, was heute die Menschen erreichen, ist, daß sie in der Empfindung manchmal Stoffe voneinander unterscheiden können, daß sie die Dinge so befühlen und etwas in der Empfindung unterscheiden. Aber die Menschen sind in ihrer Empfindung - ich meine, in der rein physischen Empfindung - heute eigentlich recht grob; sie unterscheiden Wärme und Kälte. Höchstens daß es die Leute, die darauf angewiesen sind, zu einer feineren Empfindung bringen. Das sind zum Beispiel die Blinden. Es gibt ja Blinde, die lernen, wenn sie das Papier überfahren, die Buchstabenformen befühlen. Jeder Buchstabe ist ja ein bißchen eingegraben ins Papier. Wenn das Gefühl in den Fingern fein ausgebildet wird, kann man schon die Buchstaben etwas befühlen. Das sind die einzigen Leute, die heute lernen, feiner etwas fühlen, feiner etwas empfinden. In der Regel wird die Empfindung gar nicht ausgebildet, aber man lernt ungeheuer viel, wenn man das Gefühl, und namentlich das Gefühl in den Fingerspitzen und in den Fingern ganz fein ausbildet. Heute unterscheidet der Mensch Wärme und Kälte nicht bloß durch das Gefühl. Ja, das kann er auch heute, deshalb, weil er das Thermometer lesen kann; da werden ihm die feinen Unterschiede in Wärme und Kälte sichtbar. Aber das Thermometer ist ja auch erst im Laufe der Zeit erfunden worden. Vorher hatten die Leute nur ihr Gefühl. Da wurden in den Mysterienvorbereitungen anfangs nämlich die Gefühle, besonders in den Fingern und Fingerspitzen, ganz besonders ausgebildet. Und es war so, daß man in feinster Weise empfinden lernte.

Wer war also eigentlich in den Mysterien derjenige, der zuerst vorbereitet worden war, ganz fein zu empfinden? Nun, die anderen Menschen konnten nicht so fein empfinden. Nehmen Sie nun an, irgendwo, an einem andern Orte, war ein Mysterium. Die Leute reisten ja viel im Altertum; sie reisten fast ebensoviel wie wir, und manchmal ist man erstaunt, wie schnell sie reisten. Sie hatten keine Eisenbahn; aber sie reisten, weil sie flinker waren, weil sie schneller gehen konnten, weniger müde wurden, auch etwas besser gingen und so weiter. Und nun trafen sie sich auf dem Wege, solche Leute. Ja, wenn sich zwei solche Leute, die fein empfinden konnten, die Hand gaben, so merkten sie das aneinander, und man sagte dann: Die erkennen sich an ihrer feineren Empfindung. Das ist dasjenige, was man den Griff nennt - den Griff, wenn man den anderen angriff in alten Zeiten und man merkte, der hat eine feinere Empfindung.

Nun weiter, meine Herren, bedenken Sie einmal das zweite: Wenn erkannt wurde, daß einer eine feine Empfindung hatte, dann ging man weiter, denn man lernte noch mehr. In alten Zeiten schrieb man ja nicht so viel wie heute; man schrieb eigentlich nur sehr selten und das Allerallerheiligste auf. Allerdings, es gibt im Altertum auch schon eine Art von Korrespondenz; aber auch diese Korrespondenz war mehr in allerlei Zeichen. Und so entstanden viele Zeichen für alles mögliche. Es war ja auch so, daß die Leute, die nicht zu den Mysterien gehörten, die also nicht die Weisen, wie man sie nannte, waren, wenn sie reisten, nur in kleinerem Umkreis reisten; die kamen nicht sehr weit. Aber die Gelehrten, die Weisen, die reisten sehr viel. Da hätten sie eigentlich nicht nur alle Sprachen, sondern alle Dialekte kennen müssen. Es ist ja natürlich schwer, schon wenn man Norddeutscher ist, den Schweizer Dialekt zu können. Nun aber gab es für diese Leute in den Mysterien außer der Sprache, die sie sprachen, für alle Dinge, die sie interessierten, gewisse Zeichen. Sie machten Zeichen. So zum Beispiel, sagen wir, es wurde die gewöhnliche Gebärde, die man schon in der Empfindung hat, weiter ausgebildet: Ich begreife -; oder: Das ist nichts, was du mir sagst -; oder: Wir verstehen uns gut miteinander. - Man zeichnete das Kreuz hinein. So daß es eine voll ausgebildete Zeichensprache gerade unter den alten Weisen gab, und man legte alles, was man wußte, in solche Zeichen hinein. So daß Sie einsehen können: Alle die Leute, die in den damaligen hohen Schulen, in den Mysterien, waren, hatten für alles gewisse Zeichen. Sagen wir zum Beispiel, sie wollten nun diese Zeichen festhalten. Dann erst malten sie sie auf. So entstanden die aufgemalten Zeichen.

Es ist schon interessant, daß es heute noch gewisse Schriften gibt, welche deutlich erkennen lassen, daß sie aus Zeichen hervorgegangen sind. Das ist zum Beispiel die alte Schrift der Inder, die Sanskritschrift. Bei ihr sieht man überall, daß alles aus der krummen und aus der geraden Linie hervorgegangen ist. Krumme Linien: Unzufriedenheit mit etwas, Antipathie; gerade Linien: Sympathie. Bedenken Sie einmal: Es weiß einer, die geraden Linien bedeuten Sympathie, die krummen Linien bedeuten Antipathie. Jetzt will ich ihm etwas mitteilen. Dafür habe ich auch mein Zeichen. Er will mir etwas sagen; das kann ja anfangs gut gehen, später aber kann die Geschichte schlecht werden. Sehen Sie, da geht es noch gut; später zeichnet er eine Schlangenlinie: da kann es schlecht gehen. Und so hatte man für alles bestimmte Zeichen. An diesen Zeichen oder mit diesen Zeichen verständigten sich diejenigen wieder, die in den Mysterien waren. So daß man zum Griff dazu hatte das Zeichen.

Nun, etwas ganz Besonderes sah man früher in den Worten. Sehen Sie, wenn heute der Mensch Worte spricht, so hat er eigentlich gar keine Ahnung mehr, was es mit den Worten ist. Aber man kann doch noch etwas empfinden, was in den Lauten schon drinnen liegt. Sie werden leicht empfinden können, wenn einer irgendwie in einer Lebenslage ist und er fängt an: A - da hat das irgend etwas mit Verwunderung zu tun. A - der Buchstabe A ist Verwunderung. Nun nehmen Sie dazu den Buchstaben R: dadrinnen liegt das Hinrollen, Strahlen: R = Ausstrahlen. A = Verwunderung, R = Rollen, Ausstrahlen.

Nun wissen wir jetzt allerdings das, was wir eben über die Sonnenstrahlen gesagt haben. Aber auch wenn die Sonnenstrahlen scheinbar sind, wenn sie keine Wirklichkeit sind: es sieht so aus, wie wenn sie hinströmen würden. Nun denken Sie sich, es will einer sagen: Da oben ist etwas, das wirft mir hier auf der Erde etwas zu, was, wenn es mir am Morgen erscheint, Verwunderung hervorruft. Die Verwunderung drückt er aus durch A, aber daß es von oben kommt, mit R; das drückt er also aus mit: RA. Ja, so haben die alten Ägypter den Sonnengott genannt: Ra! In jedem von diesen Buchstaben liegt eben ein Empfinden darinnen, und wir haben die Buchstaben zu Worten zusammengesetzt. Es war also eine ganz ausgebreitete Empfindung drinnen. Das ist heute längst vergessen. So etwas kann man an verschiedenen Dingen spüren. Nehmen Sie zum Beispiel: I. Das ist so etwas wie eine leise Freude; man findet sich ab mit dem, was man erfährt, wahrnimmt: I. Daher wird auch das Lachen ausgedrückt mit: hihi. Das ist eine leise Freude. So hat jeder Buchstabe etwas Bestimmtes in sich. Und es gibt eine Kenntnis, durch die man geradezu die Worte bilden kann, wenn man Verständnis hat für die Laute, die in den Worten drinnen sind.

Nun werden Sie eines sagen, meine Herren: Ja, dann könnte es eigentlich, wenn das so wäre, nur eine einzige Sprache geben! - Ursprünglich hat es unter der Menschheit auch eine einzige Sprache gegeben; als man noch ein Empfinden hatte für diese Laute, diese Buchstaben, hat es nur eine einzige Sprache gegeben. Die Sprachen sind dann verschieden geworden, als sich die Menschen zerstreut haben. Aber ursprünglich haben die Menschen das empfunden, und in den Mysterien wurde das richtig gelehrt, wie man Laute, Buchstaben empfindet und zu Worten macht. Daher gab es eine eigene Sprache in den Mysterien. Diese Sprache, die sprachen alle untereinander. Sie sprachen untereinander nicht die Dialekte, aber diese Sprache, die verstanden alle. Wenn einer Ra sagte, wußte der andere, daß das die Sonne ist. Wenn einer zum Beispiel sagt: E - fühlen Sie nur: Ich schrecke etwas zurück, das paßt mir nicht; E = ich habe eine leise Furcht, so etwas wie Furcht! Nun, nehmen Sie L: Das ist so, wiewenn etwas hinschwindend ist, wie wenn etwas fließt, und EL, ja, das ist etwas, das hinfließt und wodurch man zurückschreckt, wodurch man sich fürchtet. So hat in Babylon El = Gott geheißen. So wurde alles nach diesem Prinzip bezeichnet. Oder nehmen Sie die Bibel: Wenn Sie sagen: O - das ist eine Verwunderung, eine plötzliche Verwunderung, gegen die man nicht aufkommt. Beim A - da hat man eine Empfindung, welche man gern hat, eine Verwunderung, die man gern hat; O - da will man zurück weichen; H, Ch ist der Atem. So daß man sagen kann: O = zurückweichende Verwunderung; H = Atem; I = da zeigt man hin darauf, man freut sich darüber, es ist leise Freude = I. Und M, das ist: Man will selber hineingehen. Sie spüren, wenn Sie M aussprechen: M - da geht der Atem hinaus, und man fühlt, man läuft förmlich nach dem Atem; M ist also: hinweggehen. Jetzt setzen wir das zusammen: El, das haben wir schon gesehen, ist der im Winde herkommende Geist, El; O = das ist die zurückweichende Verwunderung, H = der Atem; das ist also schon der feinere Geist, der als Atem wirkt; I ist die leise Freude; M ist das Hingehen. Da haben Sie Elohim, womit die Bibel beginnt; da haben Sie diese Laute drinnen. So daß man sagen kann: Was sind die Elohim? - Die Elohim sind im Winde Wesen, vor denen man etwas Angst hat, vor denen man etwas zurückweicht, die aber durch den Atem zur Freude der Menschen, im Hingehen zu den Menschen Freude haben: Elohim. Und so ist ursprünglich in den Worten nach den Lauten, nach den Buchstaben zu studieren, was die Worte eigentlich bedeuten. Die Menschen spüren heute gar nicht mehr, wie das eigentlich ist.

Wie heißt hier in der Schweiz die Mehrzahl von Wagen? Heißt es auch hier: Wagen, oder heißt es die Wägen ? (Antwort: Die Wagen! Diese Antwort ist falsch. Es heißt im Schweizerdeutsch «Wäge», wie Dr. Steiner vermutet hat.) - Die Wagen heißt es noch. Da ist es also schon verwuschelt; das Ursprüngliche wäre: der Wagen, die Wägen! Bei der Mehrzahl haben wir das in der verschiedensten Weise; zum Beispiel haben wir: der Bruder, die Brüder. Das ist aber doch wohl auch so in der Schweiz! Sie sagen doch nicht: die Bruder? Also: der Bruder, die Brüder. Oder sagen wir: das Holz, die Hölzer. Man sagt ja wohl auch hier nicht: die Holzer. Das Holz, die Hölzer. Sie sehen, meine Herren, wenn die Mehrzahl gebildet wird, da wird der Umlaut gebildet: ainä, uinü, oinö. Warum geschieht das? Ja, der Umlaut, der drückt aus, daß die Sache undeutlich wird! Wenn ich einen Bruder sehe, dann ist er deutlich da als eine Person; wenn ich mehrere Brüder sehe, dann wird es undeutlich, da muß ich schon einen von dem andern unterscheiden, und wenn ich das nicht kann, wird es undeutlich. Man muß einen um den andern anschauen. Das Undeutlichwerden wird überall durch den Umlaut angedeutet. Wo also ein Umlaut irgendwo in einem Worte ist, da ist irgend etwas undeutlich.

In der Sprache liegt also etwas, woran man eigentlich den ganzen Menschen erkennen kann; da ist der ganze Mensch. Und so drückten die Leute auch aus, wie schon in den Buchstaben, die man aufschrieb, in diesen Zeichen gewisse Bedeutungen drinnen liegen. A war immer Verwunderung. Wenn nun der alte Jude so x aufgeschrieben hat, so sagte er sich: Wer verwundert sich in der Erdenwelt? Die Tiere verwundern sich eigentlich nicht, nur der Mensch. Daher nannte er den Menschen überhaupt: die Verwunderung. Wenn er sein Aleph aufschrieb, das x , das hebräische A, dann bedeutete das aber auch den Menschen.

Und so war es, daß jeder Buchstabe zugleich ein bestimmtes Ding oder Wesen bedeutete. Das alles kannten wiederum die Leute, die in den Mysterien waren. Wenn also einer reiste und traf einen anderen, und sie hatten die gemeinsame Kenntnis, so erkannten sie sich am Wort. So daß man sagen kann: In den alten Zeiten war es so, daß die Leute, die etwas gelernt haben, die also viel wußten, einander erkannten an Griff, Zeichen und Wort. Ja, aber, meine Herren, da war etwas darinnen! Da war wirklich zugleich die ganze Gelehrsamkeit drinnen in diesen Zeichen, Griff und Wort. Denn dadurch, daß man fühlen lernte, lernte man die Gegenstände unterscheiden. Dadurch, daß man die Zeichen hatte, hatte man ein Nachahmen alles desjenigen, was Naturgeheimnisse waren. Und im Worte lernte man den inneren Menschen kennen. So daß man also sagen kann: Im Griff hatte man die Wahrnehmung; im Zeichen hatte man die Natur, und im Wort hatte man den Menschen, seine innere Verwunderung oder sein Zurückbeben, seine Freude und so weiter. Man hatte also Natur und Mensch und hat sie wiedergegeben in Zeichen, Griff und Wort.

Nun, im Laufe der Menschheitsentwickelung ist dann dasjenige entstanden, was sich auf der einen Seite trennte in die Universität und später in die Schulen, und auf der anderen Seite in die Kirche und in die Kunst. Alle drei haben nicht mehr verstanden, was ursprünglich vorhanden war; und ganz verloren ging Griff, Zeichen und Wort. Nur diejenigen haben es verstanden, die dann bemerkt hatten: Donnerwetter, diese alten Weisen, die hatten ja dadurch eine gewisse Macht, daß sie das wußten! Das ist eine gerechtfertigte Macht, dieein Mensch hat, wenn er etwas weiß, denn dadurch kommt es seinen Mitmenschen zugute; wenn keiner eine Lokomotive zu machen verstünde, so würde die Menschheit eben niemals eine Lokomotive haben! Also wenn einer etwas weiß, so kommt es den Menschen zugute; das ist eine gerechtfertigte Macht. Später aber haben sich die Leute einfach die Macht angeeignet, indem sie abgeguckt haben die äußeren Zeichen. Gerade wie diese oder jene Zeichen früher einmal etwas bedeutet haben und man später die Bedeutung verloren hat, so hat alles das die Bedeutung verloren. Und es bildete sich dann, ich möchte sagen, durch Nachäffung von den alten Mysterien, allerlei aus, in dem Sie nur äußerlich die Sache haben. Was haben die Leute getan? Die hatten die feine Empfindung nicht mehr, aber sie verabredeten ein Zeichen, an dem sie sich erkennen. Sie geben sich die Hand in einer bestimmten Weise, wodurch einer weiß: der gehört zu diesem Bund. Da haben sie sich erkannt am Griff. Dann machen sie noch in irgendeiner Weise ein Zeichen. Das Zeichen und der Griff sind verschieden, je nachdem der eine im ersten oder zweiten oder dritten Grad ist. Daran erkennen sich dann die Leute. Aber es ist nicht mehr darinnen als nur ein Erkennungszeichen. Und ebenso haben sie für jeden Grad bestimmte Worte, die sie aussprechen können in gewissen freimaurerischen Bünden; sie haben, sagen wir, für den ersten Grad zum Beispiel, wenn man wissen will: Was ist das Wort? - [das Losungswort] Jachin. Man weiß, er hat das Wort Jachin in der Freimaurerloge gelernt, sonst wäre er nicht im ersten Grad drin. Das ist nur noch ein Losungswort. Und ebenso macht er dann das Zeichen und so weiter.

Nun, eigentlich hat diese Art der Freimaurerei sich erst entwickelt, als alles übrige aus den Mysterien vergessen war; und es wurden einzelne von den alten Dingen, die man nicht mehr verstand, nachgeahmt. So daß dasjenige, was die Freimaurerei an Kultus übernommen hat, meistens heute von den Freimaurern nicht mehr verstanden wird; auch Zeichen, Griff und Wort verstehen sie nicht, weil sie all das nicht wissen, um was es sich da handelt. Sie wissen zum Beispiel nicht, daß, wenn sie das Wort des zweiten Grades aus Tafel 21 sprechen: Boas, daß das B so viel ist wie ein Haus; O ist, wie ich Ihnen gesagt habe, diese zurückhaltende Verwunderung; A: das ist die angenehme Verwunderung; $ ist das Zeichen für die Schlange. Damit haben Sie ausgedrückt: Wir erkennen die Welt als dasjenige an, was ein großes Haus ist, das der große Baumeister der Welt gebaut hat, über das man sich sowohl ängstlich als auch behaglich verwundern muß und in dem es auch das Böse gibt, die Schlange. - Ja, so etwas hat man gewußt in alten Zeiten; da hat man die Natur angeschaut nach diesen Dingen, den Menschen angeschaut nach diesen Dingen. Heute sprechen ahnungslos in gewissen Freimaurerbünden diejenigen, die den zweiten Grad haben, das Wort «Boas» aus. Ebenso, nicht wahr, wenn beim dritten Grad die Leute die Finger gelegt haben auf die Pulsader, dann war das wirklich eine Erkenntnis, daß der Betreffende eine feine Empfindung hat. Das merkte man an der Art und Weise, wie der Finger lag an der Pulsader. Das ist später geworden der Griff für den dritten Grad. Die Leute wissen heute nur noch, wenn einer kommt und so die Hand nimmt: das ist ein Freimaurer. Also in diesen Dingen ist eigentlich etwas Altes, Ehrwürdiges, Großes, etwas, worin alle frühere Gelehrsamkeit gelegen ist; das ist jetzt also ganz ins Formelhafte übertragen, ins Nichtige ausgegangen. So daß heute der Freimaurerbund solche Dinge hat; er hat auch Zeremonien, einen Kultus: das ist noch aus den Zeiten, wo man alles auch in einem Kultus, in Zeremonien gezeigt hat, damit es den Leuten mehr eindringlich war. Die Freimaurer machen das auch heute noch. So daß in dieser innerlichen Beziehung wirklich der Freimaurerorden keine Bedeutung mehr hat.

Aber es ist doch so furchtbar langweilig für viele Leute gewesen, wenn solche Bündnisse eingerichtet worden sind, da die Sachen mitzumachen; denn eigentlich artete es aus in eine Art Spielerei. Es brauchte also etwas, was man wiederum hineinschüttete, hineingoß in die Freimaurerei. Und dadurch entstand das, daß dann die Freimaurer mehr oder weniger politisch wurden, oder wiederum mehr oder weniger religiöse Aufklärungslehren verbreiteten. Die unaufgeklärte römische Lehre wurde von Rom verwaltet. Diejenige Lehre, die Rom gegenüberstand, wurde dann von der Freimaurerei verbreitet. Daher sind Rom, der römische Kultus und die Freimaurerei die allergrößten Gegner. Das hängt gar nicht mehr zusammen mit dem, was nun der Kultus, Zeichen, Griff und Wort, bei den Freimaurern war, sondern das ist eben dazwischen gekommen. In Frankreich nannte man den Bund nicht Bund, sondern «Orient de France», weil alles von dem Orient genommen ist - «Grand Orient de France», das ist der große französische Freimaurerbund. Das andere, Zeichen, Griff und Wort, das ist nur noch, damit die Leute zusammenhalten, das ist das, woran sie sich erkennen. Der gemeinschaftliche Kultus ist das, wo sie zusammenkommen unter besonders feierlichen Umständen; so wie die anderen in der Kirche zusammenkommen, so kommen diese Freimaurer unter Zeremonien, die von alten Mysterien herrühren, zusammen. Das hält die Leute zusammen.

Es war ja auch besonders in Italien zu gewissen Zeiten, als politische Geheimbünde sich bildeten, Sitte, unter gewissen Zeremonien, Zeichen und Griff, sich zu erkennen und zusammenzukommen. Politische Bünde, politische Vereinigungen haben immer angeknüpft an dieses alte Mysterienwissen. Und es ist heute ja wiederum ganz merkwürdig: Wenn Sie heute zum Beispiel in gewisse polnische und österreichische Gegenden gehen, finden Sie Plakate; auf diesen Plakaten sind sonderbare Zeichen und sonderbare Buchstaben, die sich dann zu Worten verbinden; man weiß zunächst nicht, was dieses Plakat bedeutet - aber solch ein Plakat, das heute in polnischen und österreichischen Gegenden überall angeschlagen ist, das ist das äußere Zeichen für einen Bund, der von gewissen nationalistischen Seiten unter der Jugend gebildet wird. Da wird mit denselben Dingen vorgegangen. Es ist das eigentlich weit, weit verbreitet, und die Leute wissen ganz gut, daß das Zeichen auch eine gewisse starke Kraft hat. Es gibt Verbände, die Deutschvölkischen zum Beispiel, die haben ein altes indisches Zeichen: zwei ineinandergeschlungene Schlangen, oder auch, wenn Sie wollen, ein Rad, das sich dann so umgebildet hat zum Hakenkreuz. Die haben das heute als Abzeichen. Und Sie werden vielfach hören, daß das Hakenkreuz wiederum als ein Zeichen angenommen wird für gewisse chauvinistische völkische Kreise. Das ist aus dem Grunde, weil man die Überlieferung hat: durch solche Zeichen haben die Alten ihre Herrschaft ausgedrückt. Und so ist es im großen Maßstabe immer gewesen beim Freimaurerbund. Der Freimaurerbund ist eigentlich dazu da, um gewisse Leute zusammenzuhalten, und das tut er durch Zeremonien, durch Zeichen, Griff und Wort. Und dann verfolgt er geheime Ziele, indem er unter all denen, die unter diesen Zeremonien, Zeichen, Griff und Wort, verbunden sind, gewisse Geheimnisse bewahrt. Natürlich, geheime Ziele kann man nur verfolgen, wenn sie nicht alle wissen; und so ist es bei den Freimaurerbünden, daß sie vielfach politische oder kulturelle und dergleichen Ziele verfolgen.

Nun können Sie aber noch eines sagen, meine Herren. Sehen Sie, die Leute, die in Freimaurerbünden verbunden sind, sind keineswegs deshalb anzufechten, weil sie das tun, sondern manchmal haben sie die allerbesten und edelsten Absichten; sie sind nur der Ansicht: Man kann die Menschen nicht auf eine andere Weise als durch solche Bündnisse für so etwas gewinnen, und daher haben die meisten Freimaurerbünde auch wiederum den Zweck, Wohltätigkeit im großen zu üben. Das ist schön, Wohltätigkeit und Humanität zu üben. Das ist nun auch etwas, was von diesen Bünden in großem Maßstabe ausgeübt wird. Daher ist es kein Wunder, wenn der Freimaurer immer darauf hinweisen kann, daß furchtbar vieles außerordentlich Humanes und Wohltätiges gerade von den Freimaurerbünden gestiftet und begründet wird. Man muß nur eben sich sagen: In der heutigen Zeit sind eigentlich alle solche Dinge nicht mehr zeitgemäß. Denn, nicht wahr, was müssen wir denn heute an solchen Dingen hauptsächlich ablehnen? Wir müssen die Absonderung ablehnen. Es entsteht dadurch auch bald eine geistige Aristokratie, die es nicht geben soll. Und das demokratische Prinzip, das immer mehr und mehr zur Geltung kommen muß, das widerstrebt eigentlich durchaus dem Freimaurerbund ebenso wie den geschlossenen Priesterschaften. So daß man also sagen kann: Es ist schon einmal so, daß derjenige, der noch heute verstehen kann, was in manchen freimaurerischen Zeremonien für den ersten, zweiten und dritten Grad enthalten ist, in dem, was die Freimaurer selber oft nicht verstehen, erkennen kann, daß sie oftmals zurückreichen auf ganz alte Weisheit; aber dieses hat nicht die große Bedeutung. Die große Bedeutung hat dieses, daß eigentlich heute bei vielen freimaurerischen Verbänden, Bündnissen, eben viele politische oder sonstige soziale Wohltätigkeitsbestrebungen leben. Aber bis aufs Messer bekämpfen sich die katholische Kirche und die Freimaurer. Das hat sich aber auch im Laufe der Zeit erst herausgebildet.

Nun, solche Dinge kann man natürlich sehr leicht verkennen. Und es ist auch das aufgetreten: Die Freimaurer haben eine bestimmte Bekleidung bei ihren Zeremonien; sie haben zum Beispiel ein Schurzfell aus Lamm, das Lammschurzfell. Da haben manche gesagt: Die Freimaurerei ist überhaupt nichts anderes als eine Spielerei mit dem Maurerhandwerk, weil der Maurer ein Schurzfell hat. Aber das ist nicht wahr. Und das Schurzfell, das da ist, das ist durchaus dazu da - und es ist immer ursprünglich aus Lammleder gewesen -, um zu zeigen, daß derjenige, der in solchen Bündnissen ist, nicht ein wütender Kerl sein soll in bezug auf die Leidenschaften; es sollen also die Geschlechtsteile bedeckt werden mit seinem Schurz, und das ist das Zeichen dafür. Also es handelte sich da doch um etwas, was in Zeichen ausdrückte den menschlichen Charakter. Und so ist es mit sehr vielen Zeichen, die auch in der Bekleidung liegen.

Man hat dann auch höhere Grade, wo ein ganz priesterähnliches Kleid getragen wird; da bedeutet alles einzelne etwas. Zum Beispiel habe ich Ihnen gesagt, daß der Mensch ja außer dem physischen Leib noch einen Ätherleib hat. Und geradeso wie der Priester ein weißes Linnenkleid, ein hemdartiges Gewand hat, um den Ätherleib auszudrücken, so haben auch gewisse hohe Grade der Freimaurer ein solches Gewand, und für den Astralleib - er ist farbig -, da hat man eine Toga, ein Übergewand; das drückt alles das aus. Und der Mantel, der dann verbunden war mit dem Helm, der drückte aus die Macht des Ich.

Alle diese Dinge führen eben zurück auf alte, sehr sinnreiche, bedeutsame Gebräuche, die heute ihre Bedeutung verloren haben. Wenn jemand die Freimaurerei gern hat, so soll er das nicht als etwas Abschätziges behandeln, was ich gesagt habe. Ich wollte nur auseinandersetzen, wie das ist. Es kann natürlich ein Freimaurerorden bestehen, der außerordentlich gute Menschen in sich vereinigt und so weiter. Und in der heutigen Zeit kann so etwas besonders wichtig werden. Wirklich, was heute meistens der Mensch lernt, wenn er Arzt oder Jurist wird - ja, das ergreift sein Herz nicht. Und deshalb werden noch viele Juristen und Ärzte Freimaurer, weil sie dann wenigstens die Feierlichkeit der alten Zeremonien haben und etwas, wobei sie sich nicht mehr viel denken können, was aber immerhin noch etwas ist: Zeichen, Griff und Wort, was aber hinweist darauf, daß der Mensch nicht bloß im äußeren Materiellen lebt.

Das ist das, was ich Ihnen sagen wollte. Haben Sie sonst noch irgend etwas, was Sie gerne fragen wollten?

Frage: In Amerika gibt es etwas, das «Ku-Klux-Klan» genannt wird. Wie ist es damit? Können wir von Herrn Doktor etwas darüber hören, was das bedeutet? Man liest immer wieder darüber.

Dr. Steiner: Ja, sehen Sie, der Ku-Klux-Klan, der ist eine der neuesten Erfindungen auf diesem Gebiet, und zwar eine solche Erfindung, die schon wichtiger genommen werden sollte als man sie gewöhnlich nimmt. Sie wissen ja, meine Herren, daß eigentlich eine Begeisterung für einen gewissen Kosmopolitismus nur war vor einigen Jahrzehnten. Heute ist er zwar noch da, selbstverständlich, unter der Arbeiterschaft, unter dem Sozialdemokratismus - diese sind ein internationales Element -, aber in den bürgerlichen Kreisen und in anderen Kreisen, da nimmt der Nationalismus furchtbar überhand, und die Stimmung für den Nationalismus ist ja stark da. Und Sie werden sich auch erinnern, daß diejenigen Menschen, die hinter Woodrow Wilson standen - er selber war ja nur eine Art Strrohmann -, eigentlich gerechnet haben mit diesem Nationalismus, überall nationale Staaten haben wollten, überall den Nationalismus aufstacheln wollten und so weiter. Ja, darüber kann man so seine Ansichten haben! Aber nun gibt es eben Menschen, die entwickeln heute überall die Tendenz, den Nationalismus bis auf die Spitze zu treiben. Und in diesem Bestreben, den Nationalismus bis auf die Spitze zu treiben, ist eben in Amerika diese Verbindung Ku-Klux-Klan entstanden. Der arbeitet nun eben durchaus mit solchen Mitteln, wie zum Beispiel Zeichen sind, in dem Sinne, wie ich es gesagt habe.

Wenn man nun gerade wiederum solche Verbindungen ins Auge faßt, dann muß man wissen, daß Zeichen schon auch eine gewisse hypnotisierende Kraft haben. Sie wissen ja, wenn Sie ein Huhn haben (es wird gezeichnet), dieses Huhn mit dem Schnabel auf die Erde aufstoßen lassen, und Sie zeichnen von da aus einen Kreidestrich, läuft das Huhn dem Kreidestrich nach! Es ist hypnotisiert, es läuft dem Strich nach! Sie müssen nur erst den Schnabel aufstoßen auf den Anfang, dann läuft es dem Kreidestrich nach, weil es hypnotisiert ist von dem Strich. So hat jedes Zeichen - nicht nur für das Huhn die gerade Linie - eine Bedeutung, eine bestimmte einschläfernde Bedeutung, wenn man es darauf anlegt. Und das benützen nun wiederum gewisse Geheimverbindungen, um gerade solche Zeichen zu wählen, durch die sie den anderen Menschen betören, einschläfern, so daß er seine eigene Urteilskraft nicht geltend macht. Und mit solchen Mitteln arbeiten extrem namentlich solche Geheimverbindungen. Dazu gehört in Amerika wiederum der KuKlux-Klan. Nun ist der Ku-Klux-Klan aus dem Grunde gefährlich, weil solche Verbindungen nicht nur auf das eine Volk ausgehen, sondern sie wollen das nationalistische Prinzip überall haben. Es kann niemand sagen: Der Ku-Klux-Klan braucht bloß eine amerikanische Einrichtung zu bleiben, weil er den amerikanischen Nationalismus besonders befördern will. - So sagt der Anhänger des KuKlux-Klan nicht; sondern er sagt: Man soll überhaupt den Nationalismus befördern, also den in Ungarn, den in Deutschland, den in Frankreich. - Sehr schön! Nicht auf den Amerikanismus kommt es ihm an, er ist nicht ein Patriot, sondern er sieht in diesem Pochen der Menschen auf den Nationalismus etwas, was, wenn es dann zusammenwirkt bei den verschiedensten Nationen, dann bewirkt, was er erreichen will: nämlich die Menschen absolut ins Chaos hineinbringen. Das will er: Er will alles ins Chaos hineinbringen! Es ist die reine Zerstörungswut darinnen. Und so ist der Ku-Klux-Klan besonders aus dem Grund gefährlich, weil er sich in allen Ländern ausbreiten kann. Und Sie können nicht sagen, wenn er sich einmal ausbreiten will hier in der Schweiz, das sei eine amerikanische Einrichtung, sondern es ist dann eine nationale schweizerische Einrichtung.

Und so waren im Grunde auch die freimaurerischen Bündnisse; sie waren international, aber für die einzelnen Länder immer nationalistisch. Aber darauf gaben sie nicht viel, sondern sie haben es mehr der Außenwelt gegenüber getan, daß sie mitmachten, was in der Außenwelt war. Und man kann nun sagen: Aber sind denn solche Menschen nicht eigentlich wahnsinnig, die aufrütteln wollen so etwas wie ein absolut nationalistisches Prinzip, und die da alles zerstören wollen? Das kann man eigentlich auch nicht sagen. Natürlich, wenn man frägt, heißt es: Selbstverständlich macht man solche Sachen nicht mit. - Aber die Leute sagen sich: Es ist alles so verdorben heute - die Führenden sagen sich das bei den anderen, die nachlaufen -, das ist ja den anderen ganz einerlei, so daß es gar keinen Sinn hat, die Dinge zu pflegen, die heute da sind. Man muß erst die Menschheit wie eine wirre Masse behandeln. Dann werden die Menschen wieder zu sich kommen, und dann werden sie wiederum etwas Ordentliches lernen. Also eine Idee haben die Leute schon, und namentlich der Ku-Klux-Klan hat eine Idee in dieser Beziehung.

Sie meinen: nicht?

Der Fragesteller: Doch! Aber das ist komisch!

Dr. Steiner: Sehen Sie, viele Dinge sind im Kulturleben komisch, und wir haben ja auch schon Dinge erwähnt, die komisch aussahen. Aber das Komische ist manchmal recht gefährlich. Es scheint einem komisch, aber es ist manchmal außerordentlich gefährlich.

Nun, meine Herren, muß ich morgen im Laufe des Tages wiederum - nach Breslau - verreisen. Ich werde dann sagen, wann wir die nächste Stunde haben werden.

Good morning, gentlemen! Perhaps you have thought of something during the slightly longer time - a special question?

Question about the nature of the various hierarchies and their influence on humanity.

Dr. Steiner: I think this is a subject that will be somewhat difficult and incomprehensible for those gentlemen who are here for the first time today, because one should know something of what has already been presented in the lectures that have been given. But I will still address the matter and try to make it as understandable as possible.

You see, when you look at a person standing and walking on the earth, that person actually has all the kingdoms of nature within them. Man has, first of all, the animal kingdom within him; in a certain sense, he is also organized like an animal. You can see this from the fact that man has, let us say, for example, thighbones and humerus, which are also found in a similar way in higher animals; but if you can see the matter clearly, you will also find that it is related to the lower animals, or at least shaped similarly. And if you look at fish, you can see roughly what corresponds to a human bone in fish. The same thing that can be said for the bone system can also be said for the muscle system and for the internal organs. We find a stomach in humans – and in a corresponding way, we also find a stomach in animals. In short, we find what is in the animal kingdom in the human body as well.

This has led to the materialistic view that humans are nothing more than highly developed animals. But that is not the case; rather, humans develop three things that animals cannot develop from their own organism. One is that humans learn to walk upright. Just look at the animals that learn to walk more or less upright, and you will see the considerable difference between them and humans. In the case of animals that walk upright, for example the kangaroo, you will see how the front limbs, which it does not use for walking, remain atrophied. The front limbs of the kangaroo are not designed for free use. And as for the ape, we certainly cannot say that it is human-like in this respect; because when it climbs a tree, it is not walking, but climbing. It actually has four hands, not two feet and two hands. Its feet are hand-like; it climbs. So the upright walk is the first thing that distinguishes humans from animals.

The second thing that distinguishes humans from animals is the ability to speak. And the ability to speak is connected with the upright posture. Therefore you will find that where an animal has something similar to the ability to speak – the dog, which is relatively a very intelligent animal, does not have it, but the parrot, which is somewhat upright, has it – you will find that the animal is then upright. Speech is entirely connected with this upright posture.

And the third is free will, which the animal also cannot acquire, but the animal is dependent on its inner processes. These are things that make up the whole inner organization of the human being and shape it humanely.

But the human being still carries animality within him. He has this animal realm within him.

The second thing that man carries within him is the plant kingdom. What can man do because he carries the animal kingdom within him? You see, the animal feels - so does man; the plant does not feel. On the other hand, a strange science of the present day - I have mentioned this here before - has the view that a plant can also feel because there is a plant, the so-called Venus flytrap, for example: When an insect comes near, as soon as the insect has flown up, this Venus flytrap closes its leaves and devours the insect. This is a very interesting phenomenon. But if someone says: This plant, the Venus flytrap, must sense the insect, that is, perceive it when it comes near – that is just as much nonsense as if someone were to say: A little thing that I make so that it snaps shut when a mouse comes near – a mousetrap would also have a sensation that the mouse is coming in! So such scientific opinions are not very far-reaching; they are just plain nonsense. Plants do not feel. Nor do plants move freely.

So what is common to humans and animals is the sensation and movement; in this, he bears animality within him. Only when he can think rationally - which the animal cannot - is he human as a result. Furthermore, the human being bears the plant kingdom, the whole plant kingdom, within him. The plants do not move, but they grow. The plants do not feel, but they feed themselves. The human being also grows and feeds himself. The plant kingdom does this in him. Man also bears this plant power within him. He also bears it within him when he sleeps. He sheds his animality when he sleeps, because he does not feel or move unless he is a night walker, and that is based on abnormal development; then he does not completely lose his movement, then he is ill. But in a normal state, a person does not walk around in his sleep and is not aware of anything. If he is supposed to be aware, he wakes up. He cannot be aware while sleeping. During sleep, the human being also carries the plant essence within himself.

And the mineral essence, gentlemen, we also carry that within us; it is contained, for example, in our bones. They are somewhat alive, but they contain the inanimate carbonic lime. We carry the mineral kingdom within us. We even have brain sand in our brains. That is mineral. We also carry the mineral kingdom within us. So we carry the animal kingdom, we carry the plant kingdom, we carry the mineral kingdom within us.

But that is not all for the human being. If the human being were merely a mineral, plant and animal, he would be like an animal, he would walk like an animal, because the animal also carries mineral, plant and animal within itself. Of course, the human being is not only related to these three kingdoms of nature that are visible, but he is also related to other kingdoms.

Now I will sketch this out for you schematically. Imagine that this is the human being (see drawing); now he is related to the mineral kingdom, to the plant kingdom, to the animal kingdom. But he is a human being. You can say: Well, animals can be tamed. That's all right; but have you ever seen an ox being tamed by an ox? Or a horse by a horse? Animals, even if they can be tamed, thus acquiring certain abilities that can be remotely compared to human abilities, must be tamed by humans! Right, a dog school, where the dogs teach themselves and make tame dogs out of wild dogs, does not exist; humans have to intervene. And even if one thought one could admit to the materialists everything they wanted, one would just have to follow their own train of thought – one can admit everything to them, for my part one can say: man, as he is now, was originally an animal and was tamed – but the animal he originally was could not have tamed itself! That is not possible, because otherwise a dog could also tame a dog. So there must have been original beings - they may be elsewhere now - but nevertheless there must have been original beings who brought man to his present height. And these beings cannot belong to the three realms of nature. Because if you now imagine that you would ever be tamed by a giraffe, made into a human being, when you are still like a small animal in childhood, just as little as this would be possible, you could just as little be tamed by an oak tree. At most, the German-nationalists believe this, who assume that the oak, the sacred oak, has tamed people. And, you see, the minerals even less so; rock crystal is beautiful, but it certainly cannot tame people. There must have been other beings, other realms.

Now, everything in man is really called up into the higher. The animal has the possibility of having ideas, but it does not think. The ideas form in the animals. But the animal does not have this activity of thinking. Man has this activity of thinking. And so man can indeed have his blood circulation from the animal kingdom, but he cannot have his organ of thinking from the animal kingdom. So that one can say: Man thinks, feels and wills. All these things are done freely. And all this is changed by the fact that man is an upright and articulate creature.

Imagine how you would have to want differently, how all wanting would be different, if you were always crawling around on all fours like you were in your first year; after all, all human wanting would really be different. And you would not even have time to think. And just as the things we carry in our physical body connect us with the three realms of nature, so do our thinking, feeling and willing connect us with three other realms, with supersensible, invisible realms. We have to have names for everything. Just as we call the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms the kingdoms of nature, so we call the kingdoms that effect thinking, feeling and willing in the human being, so that they are free, precisely hierarchies. So here we have: natural kingdoms, through which man reaches into nature; and here we have: hierarchies. You see, just as the human being reaches into three natural kingdoms, he also reaches into three spiritual kingdoms. With his thinking, he reaches into the hierarchy - well, you see, there is no name for it yet. Because materialism takes no account of this, there is no name for it; so we have to call it by the old name: Angeloi, angels. But you are immediately branded as superstitious. Of course, we no longer have the ability to find names in language because people have lost the ability to feel with sounds; but languages could only be formed as long as people still felt something with sounds. Today everyone speaks of ball, of fall, of strength; there is an A in everything, an A in each of these words. But what is an A? An “A” is the expression of feeling! Imagine if you suddenly saw someone opening the window from the outside and looking in. You would be amazed because that is not supposed to happen; a large part of you would probably express your amazement with an “Ah!” if you were not embarrassed to do so. A is always the expression of astonishment. So with each letter there is some expression of something. And when I say “ball,” I need the A because I am amazed when I throw the ball, how it behaves strangely; or if it means a dance ball, I am also amazed at how it swirls around! It just so happened that people gradually got used to it, so that they are no longer amazed; you could also call it a bull or a bill, but certainly no longer a ball. - Let's take “fall.” When someone plops down somewhere, you can also say: Ah! - And the other thing that is significant is precisely in the F inside. “Force": when someone applies a force that pushes him; Ah: wherever astonishment occurs, the A is there.

And consider: you are of the opinion that thinking sits in your head. But if you were to suddenly realize that spiritual beings are just as much a part of your thinking as animals must be on earth for your sensing and feeling, so that you can have animality within you, then you would also be amazed, and so, if you express this amazement, you would have to have a word that contains the A. So you would be able to name these thinking beings, who were once called angels, with an A, and you would name the fact that you have the power of thought with the letter that expresses power in a certain way: L; and the power that works you might perhaps call B. The word 'alb', which has already been used for something spiritual, could just as well be used for these beings that have to do with thinking, if it were not used only for nightmare, which is pathological. So the hierarchies are realms that man reaches into, that he carries within himself, just as he carries the realms of nature within himself; and these beings, which have been called demons or angels, are the ones that have to do with thinking.

On the other hand, animal beings are involved in the feeling in man. What, animal beings? Now, you see, if you are a little attentive, if you don't go wild from the outset when it comes to the spiritual, but if you just allow yourself to be open to the fact that it can be about the spiritual, then you will come across many things – even if you cannot yet proceed with spiritual research, as is the case with anthroposophy. Just imagine that if you want to feel, you have to have a certain warmth within you! The frog feels much less vividly than man because it does not have such warm blood; you really have to have warmth within you if you feel. But the warmth that you have within you comes from the sun! And so you can say: Feeling is also connected with the sun - only spiritually. Physical warmth is connected with the physical sun, and feeling, which is connected with physical warmth, is connected with the spiritual sun. This second hierarchy, which has to do with feeling, thus dwells in the sun. Anyone who is not completely brain-dead, as so many are today - especially scientists - can come up with it: the second hierarchy is the solar beings. And because the sun reveals itself only outwardly in light and warmth (no one knows the interior of the sun, for if physicists really came up with the sun, they would be extremely astonished to find that the sun does not look at all as they usually think it does! They think to themselves, the sun is a glowing ball of gas. That is not what it is at all; it actually consists of nothing but sucking forces; it is hollow, not even empty, but sucking. We can say that outwardly it reveals itself as light, as warmth; the beings that are within were called in Greek “beings of revelation”. Where there was still some knowledge of these things – for the old instinctive science was much more intelligent than today's – these beings, which reveal themselves from the sun, were called exusiai; we can also say: sun beings. We only need to know that when we speak of feeling, we enter the realm of the sun beings. Just as when I say: Man has in himself forces of growth and nutrition, thus the plant kingdom in himself, so I must say: Man has in himself the forces of feeling, thus forces of the spiritual sun kingdom, the second hierarchy. And the third is the first hierarchy, which has to do with the human will, where man becomes most powerful, where he does not merely move, where he expresses his deeds. This is connected with those beings who are spiritually out in the whole world and who are actually the highest spiritual beings we can get to know. We call them again by Greek or Hebrew names, because we do not yet have German ones, or we do not yet have the expressions in language at all: Thrones, Cherubim, Seraphim. That is the highest realm.

So there are three spiritual realms, just as there are three natural realms. Just as humans deal with the three natural realms, they also deal with the three spiritual realms.

Now you will say: Yes, but I can believe that or not, because these three realms are not visible, not perceptible. Yes, but, gentlemen, I have met people who were supposed to be made to understand that there is air! He didn't believe that there was air. When I say to him: There is a board - he believes that, because when he goes there, he bumps into the board, or when he looks with his eyes, he sees the board, but he does not bump into the air. He looks and says: There is nothing there. Nevertheless, today everyone admits the air. It is just there. And so it will also come about that people will admit the spiritual. Today people still say: Well, the spiritual is just not there – as the farmers used to say: The air is not there. – In my homeland, the farmers still said: The air is not there at all – only the bigwigs in the city say that, who want to be so clever; you can walk through it, there is nothing there to walk through! But that was a long time ago. Today, even the farmers know that there is air. Today, however, the cleverest people do not yet know that spiritual beings are everywhere! But in time they will admit this, because there are certain things they cannot explain otherwise, and these things also need to be explained.

If someone were to say today: In all that exists as nature, there is no spirit in it; for everything that science knows about nature is in it, nothing else is in nature – yes, anyone who says that says that, gentlemen, he is just as if a dead person were lying there, a corpse, and I come and say: You rotten guy, why don't you get up and go! I try to make him understand that he shouldn't be so lazy and get up. Yes, I am foolish because I believe that the living person is inside. And so it is: everything that the natural scientist can find in there, he does not find in the living, he finds in the dead. He also finds the dead everywhere outside in nature, but he does not find that which is alive. He does not find that which is spiritual in this way, but that is why it is there.

That is what I wanted to say in response to this question, which was asked in connection with the hierarchies.

Mr. Burle: In earlier lectures, Dr. Steiner spoke about the knowledge of spiritual science of ancient peoples. Today, this has been lost to humanity. Could Dr. Steiner explain to us why this has happened? Was materialism solely to blame?

Dr. Steiner: Why the old knowledge has been lost? Yes, you see, gentlemen, that is a very strange fact. Not in the way we have knowledge today, but in an artistic, poetic form, in a poetic form, the ancients, our ancestors, had great knowledge in primeval times, and this knowledge, as Mr. Burle quite rightly says, has been lost to humanity. Now we can ask ourselves how this knowledge was lost. Of course we cannot say that materialism alone is to blame for this, because if all people still had the old knowledge, materialism would not have come into being. It is precisely because the old knowledge was lost and people became spiritually crippled that they invented materialism. So materialism comes from the loss of ancient knowledge – not that one can say that the loss of ancient knowledge comes because materialism has spread. So what does the loss of ancient knowledge really come from?

Yes, gentlemen, it comes from the fact that humanity is undergoing a development. Of course, you can dissect the human being who is here now; when he dies, you can dissect him. In this way you can gain knowledge about the way in which man is put together in the present. From ancient times, the only things that are available are, well, the mummies in Egypt, which we talked about the other day; but they are embalmed through and through, so you can't really dissect them anymore. So how man looked in earlier times, especially in the time when he was built finer, of that people now can't get any scientific idea through mere external research; one must also penetrate with spiritual research. And then one comes to the conclusion that man in ancient times was not at all as he is today.

There was a time on earth when people did not have such firm bones as we have today; then people had bones like those of today's rachitic children, who have weak bones that cause bowlegs or knock-knees and are weak in general. You can see that such weak bones can exist because they are still present in cartilaginous fish today. Their bones are as soft as cartilage. Human beings once had such bones, because the human skeleton was once soft. Now you will say: But then people must all have walked around with knock-knees or bowlegs, and everything would have been crooked if the bones were soft!

Of course, that would have been the case if the air on our earth had always been the same as it is today. But it wasn't; the air was much thicker in the old days. It has become much thinner. And the air contained much more water in the old days than it does today. The air also contained much more carbon dioxide. All the air was thicker. Now you must realize that people in those days were also able to live with their soft bones; because we have our present-day bones only because the air no longer supports us. A thicker air supports people. Walking in those ancient times was much more like swimming than it is today. Today's walking is something terribly mechanical: we put one leg on - that has to stand properly like a pillar - we put the second leg on. People in prehistoric times did not walk like that, but they felt, just as one lets oneself be carried in the water, the watery air; that's where they could have their soft bones. But when the air became thinner there – and this can be known with external science, that the air became thinner there – only then did the hard bones make sense; only then did the hard bones arise. Of course, in the past the carbonic acid was outside, the air contained it; today we carry the carbonate of lime within us; that is how the bones became hard. That is how things are connected.

But when the bones become hard, the other things in the human being also become hard, so that the human being, who had softer bones, also had a significantly softer brain matter. In general, the skull, the human head, was also shaped quite differently in ancient times. You see, it was shaped more like the shape of hydrocephalic skulls today; that was beautiful back then, but is no longer beautiful today. And so, like the very small child still has in the womb, he retained his head because he had a soft brain mass, and the soft brain discharges into the front skull. Everything was softer in humans.

Now, gentlemen, if man was softer, then his mental abilities were also different. With a soft brain, one can think much more spiritually than with a hard brain. The ancients still felt this; they called a person who can only ever think the same thing and accepts little and therefore stubbornly always remains with the one idea, a mule. This feeling already implies that one can actually think better and have better ideas if one has a hard brain. Prehistoric men had such a hard brain.

But these primitive people had something else. We can really say: when a child is born, its skull with its soft brain and even the soft bones are still similar - the bones are no longer so strong, but the brain is very similar to that of primitive people. But put a small child down: it cannot move from the spot, cannot feed itself and the like, it cannot do anything! For this, higher beings had to take care of them when humans still had this soft brain. And the consequence of this was that people in those days had no freedom, had no free will. These people had great wisdom, but no free will at all. But in human evolution, free will gradually emerges. For this, the bones and the brain must harden. But with this hardening, the old knowledge takes its downfall. We would not have become free human beings if we had not become stubborn, hard-skulled, and had skulls with hard brains. But we owe our freedom to that. And so the downfall of the old knowledge comes with freedom. That's it. Is it understandable? (Answer: Yes) It comes with freedom!

But now, while humans have gained freedom on the one hand, they have lost the old knowledge and fallen prey to materialism. But materialism is not the truth. Therefore, we must come to spiritual knowledge again, even though we have a denser brain today than primitive people did. We can only do this through anthroposophical spiritual science, which comes to knowledge that is independent of the body, that is recognized by the soul alone. The ancient people had their knowledge because their brain was softer, that is, more similar to the soul; and we have our materialism because our brain has become hard and no longer absorbs the soul. Now we have to gain spiritual knowledge with the soul alone, which is not absorbed by the brain. This is what spiritual science does. One comes back to spiritual knowledge. But we are now living in the age in which humanity has bought its freedom through materialism. Therefore, one cannot say that materialism, even if it is untrue, is something bad. Materialism, if it is not exaggerated, is not bad, but through materialism, humanity has come to know a great deal that it did not know before. That is it.

Now, one question has already been asked in writing:

I read the sentence in your “Philosophy of Freedom”: “Only when we have made the content of the world our own thought content, only then do we rediscover the context from which we have detached ourselves.”

So that is what the gentleman read in the Philosophy of Freedom. He now poses the question: What belongs to this world content, since everything we see is only there to the extent that it is thought? And then he says: Kan explains that the mind is incapable of grasping that which the appearing world of causes is prior to the world of experience.

Well, you see, gentlemen, it is like this: when we are born and are still small children, we have eyes and ears, we see and hear, that is, we perceive the things that are outside of us. The chair that is standing there is not yet thought by the child, but it is perceived. It looks the same to the child as it does to an adult, only the child does not yet think the chair. Let us assume that, through some artificial means, the very young child, who has no thoughts yet, could already talk; then the child would be inclined to criticize everything, which is something we are accustomed to today, where even the thoughtless people criticize the most. I am even convinced that if very young children, who cannot yet think, could already talk a lot, they would become the strongest critics. Not true, even in ancient India, only those who were already sixty years old were allowed to criticize and judge; the others were not allowed to judge because it was said that they had no experience of the world. Well, I don't want to defend that, nor criticize it myself, but I just want to tell you that it was like that. Today, of course, anyone who has turned twenty would be laughed at if you wanted to tell him that he should wait to be judged until he was sixty! Today's young people don't do that; they don't wait at all, but as soon as they can hold a pen, they start writing for newspapers and judging everything. In this respect, we have come a long way today. But I am convinced that if very young children could speak, they would be strict critics! A two-year-old, my goodness, would criticize so many of our actions if he could be made to speak!

Kant – I mentioned him the other day – made the biggest mistake by believing that what the child does not yet perceive and what one only perceives later, namely the content of thought, is something that the human being first puts into things. So Kant actually says: When the chair is there – the chair has colors, the chair rattles. But when I say the chair is heavy, that is not a property of the chair, but I give it to it by thinking it heavy. The chair has firmness, but it does not have that in itself, I give it to it by thinking it firm. Yes, gentlemen, this is considered a great science, this Kantian doctrine, as I told you some time ago; but in reality it is a great nonsense. It is just that, due to the peculiar development of humanity, a great nonsense is regarded as a great science, as the highest philosophy, and Kant is always called the all-devourer, the all-destroyer. I have always seen in him only a destroyer; even as a very small boy I studied Kant over and over again. But otherwise I have not noticed that the one who destroys the soup plates establishes the greatest and that he is greater than the one who makes them. It always seemed to me that the one who makes them is greater! Kant always destroyed everything in reality. So these objections of Kant's should not trouble us at all. But the thing is that when we are born, we are detached from things because we have no connection with them at all. We only grow into things again by forming concepts. Therefore, the question that is asked here must be answered as follows: What belongs to the content of the world? I say in my Philosophy of Freedom: Only when we have made the content of the world our own content of thought do we rediscover the connection from which we detached ourselves as a child. As a child, we do not have the content of the world; we only have the sensual part of the content of the world. But the content of thought is really contained in the content of the world. So that as a child we only have half the content of the world, and only later, when we grow up to our thoughts, do we not only have the content of thought within us, but we know that it is within things, we also treat our thoughts in such a way that we know that they are within things, and there we restore the connection with things.

You see, it was very difficult in the 1980s, when everything had been Kantianized, when everyone spoke in such a way that Kantian philosophy was regarded as the highest and no one yet dared to say anything against it – it was very difficult when I appeared on the scene back then and declared that Kantian philosophy is actually nonsense. But I had to explain that from the very beginning. Because of course, when someone like Kant thinks that we actually have to add the content of thought to things, then he can no longer come to the simple content, then in the soul there are just thoughts about external things, and it is quite definitely materialism. Kant is largely to blame for the fact that people have not come out of materialism. Kant is to blame for a great deal in general. I told you about this at the time, when I was asked about Kant from a different angle. The others, because they could not think otherwise, made materialism. But Kant said: We cannot know anything about the spiritual world, we can only believe. - With this he actually said: We can only know something about the sensual world, because we can only drag thoughts into the sensual world.

And now people who wanted to become materialistic felt more and more justified in referring to Kant. But humanity must also get rid of this prejudice - that is, part of humanity, very few people know about Kant - they must get rid of always referring to Kant, and then referring to Kant when they want to say: you can't really know anything about the spiritual world. So: the content of the world is the content of the senses and the content of the spirit. But one only comes to the spiritual content in the course of life, when one develops thoughts. Then one re-establishes the connection between nature and spirit, whereas at the beginning, as a child, one only has nature before one, and the spirit only gradually develops out of one's own nature.

Does anyone have a very small question?

Mr. Burle asks about human hair and says: Today, so many girls have their hair cut. Can the doctor say whether this is beneficial to health? My little daughter also wanted to cut her hair, but I didn't allow it. I want to know if it would be harmful or not.

Dr. Steiner: No, the thing is this: hair growth is so little connected to the whole organism that it does not matter so much whether you let your hair grow long or cut it. The damage is not so great as to be noticeable. But there is a difference between men and women in this respect. It used to be the case for a while – but it's no longer true – that you would often see anthroposophists together, men and women: the man would not cut his hair, he would just have long curls, and the women would cut their hair short! Of course, people also said: This anthroposophy brings the world upside down; among anthroposophists, the ladies cut their hair off and the men let it grow. - Now that is no longer the case, at least not so noticeable. But one can also ask how it is with the difference between the sexes when cutting hair.

In general, however, it is the case that for men, abundant hair growth is somewhat superfluous; for women, it is somewhat necessary. The hair always contains sulfur, iron, silica and a few other substances. These substances are also needed by the organism. For example, silicic acid is very much needed by men because, by becoming male in the womb, they lose the ability to produce silicic acid themselves. Through the cut hair – whenever the hair is freshly cut, it absorbs the silicic acid that is in the air – the man absorbs silicic acid from the air. So cutting your hair is not a problem. It is only bad when they run out, because then they cannot absorb anything. Therefore, going bald early, which is somewhat connected to a person's lifestyle, is not exactly a good thing for a man.

Now, for women, cutting their hair is not entirely good, because women have the ability to produce more silicic acid in their organism, and so they should not cut their hair too short too often; because then the hair absorbs the silicic acid that the woman already has in her from the air and drives it back into the organism. The woman becomes hairy and prickly on the inside; she then gets “hair on her teeth”. This is not so noticeable; one must be a little sensitive to notice it, but it is there. The whole manner also becomes prickly, she becomes hairy and prickly inside; and cutting it off, especially if it happens in adolescence, also has an influence.

But it could also be the other way around, gentlemen. It could be that today's young people are coming into an environment – after all, children today are all different from how we were in our youth – where their inner silica is no longer enough for them, because they want to be prickly. They want to be a little prickly, scratchy. So they get the instinct to cut their hair. This then becomes fashionable: one person imitates another, and here the story is reversed, with children wanting to become prickly and getting their hair cut. If you can manage to get this fashion to be combated a little, then it can't be all that bad if you have exaggerated this fashion a little. After all, it comes down to this, doesn't it: one likes a soft one, the other a spiky one; that's where it can change a bit in the judgment of taste. But it can't have that much of an influence. Only if someone has a daughter who, precisely because of the circumstances, wants to or should choose a man who loves a spiky one, should she have her hair cut. Of course, she won't get a man who is sensitive to mildness; that might happen. - So the story reaches more into the fringes of life.

Rudolf Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Has someone thought of a question during the last weeks?

Question: Sir, I would like to ask about various foods—beans and carrots, for instance: what effect they have on the body. You have already spoken about potatoes; perhaps we could hear something about other foodstuffs. Some vegetarians won't eat things that have hung in the air, like beans or peas. And when one looks at a field of grain, one wonders how the various grains differ—for apparently all the peoples of the earth cultivate some grain or other.

Dr. Steiner: So—the question is about the relation of various foods to the human body. Well, first of all we should gain a clear idea of nutrition itself. One's immediate thought of nutrition is that when we eat something, it goes through the mouth down into the stomach, then it is deposited farther in the body and finally we get rid of it; then we must eat again, and so on. But the process is not as simple as that. It is much more complicated. And if one wants to understand how the human being is really related to various foods, one must first be clear about the kinds of food one definitely needs.

Now the very first thing one needs, the substance one must have without fail, is protein. Let us write all this on the board, so that we have it complete. So, protein, as it is in a hen's egg, for instance—but not just in eggs; protein is in all foods. One needs protein without fail. The second thing one needs is fats. These too are in all foods. Fats are even in plants. The third thing has a name that will be less familiar to you, but one needs to know it: carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are found particularly in potatoes, but they are also found in large quantity in all other plants. The important fact about carbohydrates is that when we eat them, they are slowly turned into starch by the saliva in our mouth and the secretions in our stomach. Starch is something we need without fail, but we don't eat starch; we eat foods that contain carbohydrates, and the carbohydrates are turned into starch inside us. Then they are converted once again, in the further process of digestion, into sugar. And we need sugar. So you see, we get the sugar we need from the carbohydrates. But we still need something else: minerals. We get them partly by adding them to our food, for example in the form of salt, and partly they are already contained in all our foodstuffs.

Now when we consider protein, we must realize how greatly it differs in animals and human beings from what it is in plants. Plants contain protein too, but they don't eat it, so where do they get it from? They get it out of the ground and out of the air, From the mineral world; they can take their protein from lifeless, mineral sources. Neither animal nor man can do that. A human being cannot use the protein that is to be got from lifeless elements—he would then only be a plant—he must get his protein as it is already prepared in plants or animals.

Actually, to be able to live on this earth the human being needs the plants. But now this is the amazing fact: the plants could not live on the earth either if human beings were not here! So, gentlemen, we reach the interesting fact—and we must grasp it quite clearly: that of all things the two most essential for human life are the green sap in the green leaves and blood. The green in the sap of a plant is called chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is contained in the green leaf. And the one other essential thing is blood.

Now this brings us to something very remarkable. Think how you breathe: that is also a way of taking in nourishment. You take oxygen in from the air; you breathe it in. But there is carbon spread through your entire body. If you go down into the earth where there are coal deposits, you've got black coal. When you sharpen a pencil, you've got graphite. Coal and graphite: they're both carbon. Your whole body is made of carbon (as well as other substances). Carbon is formed in the human body. You could say, a man is just a heap of black coal! But you could also say some thing else. Because—remember the most expensive thing in the world? a diamond—and that's made of carbon; it just has a different form. And so, if you like the sound of it better, you could say you're made of glittering diamonds. The black carbon, that graphite in the pencil, and the diamonds: they are all the same substance. If someday the coal that is dug out of the earth can by some process be made transparent, you'll have diamonds. So we have diamonds hidden in our body. Or we are a coal field! But now when oxygen combines with carbon in the blood, you have carbon dioxide. And you know carbon dioxide quite well: you only have to think of Seltzer water with the bubbles in it: they are the carbon dioxide. It is a gas. So one can have this picture: A human being inhales oxygen from the air, the oxygen spreads all through his blood; in his blood he has carbon, and he exhales carbon dioxide. You breathe oxygen in, you breathe carbon dioxide out.

In the course of the earth's evolution, gentlemen, which I have recently been describing to you, everything would long ago have been poisoned by the carbon dioxide coming from the human beings and animals. For this evolution has been going on for a long time. As you can see, since long, long ago there could have been no human kingdom or animal kingdom alive on the earth unless plants had had a very different character from those kingdoms. Plants do not take in oxygen: they take in the carbon dioxide that human beings and animals exhale. Plants are just as greedy for the carbon dioxide as human beings are for oxygen.

Now if we look at a plant [see drawing]—root, stem, leaves, blossoms: the plant absorbs carbon dioxide in every part of it. And now the carbon in the carbon dioxide is deposited in the plant, and the oxygen is breathed out by the plant. Human beings and animals get it back again. Man gives carbon dioxide out and kills everything; the plant keeps back the carbon, releases the oxygen and brings everything to life again. And the plant could do nothing with the carbon dioxide if it did not have its green sap, the chlorophyll. This green sap of the plant, gentlemen, is a magician. It holds the carbon back inside the plant and lets the oxygen go free. Our blood combines oxygen with carbon; the green plant-sap separates the carbon again from the carbon dioxide and sets the oxygen free. Think what an excellent arrangement nature has made, that plants and animals and human beings should complement one another in this way! They complement one another perfectly.

But we must go on. The human being not only needs the oxygen that the plant gives him, but he needs the entire plant. With the exception of poisonous plants and certain plants which contain very little of these substances, the human being needs all plants not only for his breathing but also for food. And that brings us to another remarkable connection. A plant consists of root, if it is an annual plane (we won't consider the trees at this moment)—of root, leaf and stem, blossom and fruit. Now look at the root for a moment. It is in the earth. It contains many minerals, because minerals are in the earth and the root clings to the earth with its tiny fine rootlets, so it is constantly absorbing those minerals. So the root of the plant has a special relation to the mineral realm of the earth.

And now look here, gentlemen! The part of the human being that is related to the whole earth is the head. Not the feet, but actually the head. When the human being starts to be an earth-man in the womb, he has at first almost nothing but a head. He begins with his head. His head takes the shape of the whole cosmos and the shape of the earth. And the head particularly needs minerals. For it is from the head that the forces go out that fill the human body with bones, for instance. Everything that makes a human being solid is the result of the way the head has been formed. While the head itself is still soft, as in the womb, it cannot form bones properly. But as it becomes harder and harder itself, it gives over to the body the forces by which both man and animal are able to form their solid parts, particularly their bones. You can see from this that we need roots. They are related to the earth and contain minerals. We need the minerals for bone-building. Bones consist of calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate; those are minerals. So you can see that the human being needs roots in order to strengthen his head.

And so, gentlemen, if—for instance—a child is becoming weak in his head—inattentive, hyperactive—he will usually have a corresponding symptom: worms in his intestines. Worms develop easily in the intestines if the head forces are too weak, because the head does not then work down strongly enough into the rest of the body. Worms find no lodging in a human body if the head forces are working down strongly into the intestines. You can see how magnificently the human body is arranged!—everything is related. And if one's child has worms, one should realize the child has become weak in his head. Also—whoever wants to be a teacher has to know these things—if there are persons who at a later age are weak-minded, one can be sure they have had worms when they were young.

And so what must one do if one observes this in the child? The simplest remedy is to give him carrots to eat for a while—with his other food, of course; naturally, one couldn't just feed him on carrots alone. Carrots are the root of the plant. They grow down in the earth and have a large quantity of minerals. They have the forces of the earth in them, and when they are taken into the stomach, they are able to work up through the blood into the head. Only substances rich in minerals are able to reach the head. Substances rich in minerals, root substances, give strength to a human being by way of the head. That is extraordinarily important. It is through carrots that the uppermost parts of the head become strong—which is precisely what the human being needs in order to be inwardly firm and vigorous, not soft.

If you look at the carrot plant, you can't help seeing that its strength has gone particularly into the root. It is almost entirely root. The only part of the plant one is interested in is the root. The rest of it, the green part, is of no importance, it just sits there up above. So the carrot is particularly good as a food substance to maintain the human head. And if sometimes you yourselves feel empty-headed, dull, can't think properly, then it's fine if you too will eat carrots for a while! Naturally, they will help children the most.

But now if we compare a potato to a carrot—well, first of all it looks quite different. Of course, the potato plant has a green part. And then it has the part we eat, what we call the tubers, deep down in the earth. Now if we would think superficially, we could say those tubers are the roots. But that is not correct; the tubers are not roots. If you look carefully down into the soil, you can see the real roots hanging on the tubers. The real roots are tiny rootlets, root hairs, that hang on the tubers. They fall away easily. When you gather up the potatoes, the hairs have already fallen away. Only in the first moment when you are lifting a potato loose from the soil, the hairs are still all over it. When we eat a potato, we are really eating a piece of swollen, enlarged stem. It only appears to be a root; in reality it is stem. The leaves are metamorphosed. The potato is something down there between the root and the stem. Therefore it does not have as much mineral content as the carrot; it is not as earthy. It grows in the earth, but it is not so strongly related to the earth. And it contains particularly carbohydrates; not so many minerals, but carbohydrates.

So now, gentlemen, you can say to yourselves: When I eat carrots, my body can really take it easy, for all it needs is saliva to soften the carrot. All it needs is saliva and stomach secretions, pepsin and so forth for all the important substance of the carrot to reach the head. We need minerals, and minerals are furnished by any kind of root, but in greatest amounts by such a root as the carrot.

But now, when we eat potatoes, first they go into the mouth and stomach. There the body has to exert strength to derive starch from them. Then the digestive process goes further in the intestines. In order that something can go into the blood and also reach the head, there must be more exertion still, because sugar has to be derived from the starch. Only then can it go to the head. So one has to use still greater forces. Now think of this, gentlemen: when I exert my strength upon some external thing, I become weak. This is really a secret of human physiology: that if I chop wood, if I use my external bodily strength, I become weak; but if I exert an inner strength, transforming carbohydrates into starch and starch into sugar, I become strong. Precisely through the fact that I permeate myself with sugar by eating potatoes, I become strong. When I use my strength externally, I become weak; if I use it internally, I become strong. So it is not a matter of simply filling oneself up with food, but of the food generating strength in our body.

And so one can say: food from roots—and all roots have the same effect as carrots although not to the same degree: they all work particularly on the head—so, food from roots gives the body what it needs for itself. Foods that lean toward the green of the plant and contain carbohydrates provide the body with strength it needs for work, for movement.

I have already spoken about the potato. While it requires a terribly large expenditure of strength, it leaves a man weak afterwards, and does not provide him with any continuing strength. But the principle I have just given you holds good even for the potato.

Now to the same extent that the potato is a rather poor foodstuff, all the grains—wheat, rye, and so on—are good foodstuffs. The grains also contain carbohydrates, and of such a nature that the human being forms starch and sugar in the healthiest possible way. Actually, the carbohydrates of the grains can make him stronger than he can make himself by any other means. Only think for a moment how strong people are who live on farms, simply through the fact that they eat large quantities of their own homemade bread which contains the grain from their fields! They only need to have healthy bodies to start with, then if they can digest the rather coarse bread, it is really the healthiest food for them. They must first have healthy bodies, but then they become quite especially strong through the process of making starch and sugar.

Now a question might be raised. You see, human beings have come in the course of their evolution—shall I say, quite of their own accord—to eating the grains differently from the way animals eat them. A horse eats his oats almost as they grow. Animals eat their kernels of grain raw, just as they come from the plant. The birds would have a hard time getting their seed if they had to depend upon someone cooking it for them first! But human beings have come of themselves to cooking the grains. And now, gentlemen, what happens when we cook the grain? Well, when we cook the grain, we don't eat it cold, we eat it warm. And it's a fact, that to digest our food we need inner warmth. Unless there is warmth we can't transform our carbohydrates into starch and the starch into sugar: that requires inner heat.

So if we first apply external heat to the foodstuffs, we help the body: it does not have to provide all the warmth itself. By being cooked first, the foods have already begun the fire process, the warmth process. That's the first result. The second is, that they have been entirely changed. Think what happens to the grain when I make flour into bread. It becomes something quite different. And how has it become different? Well, first I have ground the seeds. What does that mean? I have crushed them into tiny, tiny pieces. And you see. what I do there with the seeds, grinding them, making them fine, I'd otherwise have to do later within my own body! Everything I do externally, I'd otherwise have to do internally, inside my body; so by doing those things, I relieve my body. And the same with the baking itself: all the things I do in cooking, I save my body from doing. I bring the foods to a condition in which my body can more easily digest them.

You have only to think of the difference if someone would eat raw potatoes instead of cooked ones. If someone were to eat his potatoes raw, his stomach would have to provide a tremendous amount of warmth to transform those raw potatoes—which are almost starch already. And the extent to which it could transform them would not be sufficient. So then the potatoes would reach the intestines and the intestines would also have to use a great amount of energy. Then the potatoes would just stay put in the intestines, for the subsequent forces would not be able to carry them farther into the body. So if one eats raw potatoes, either one just loads one's stomach with them and the intestines can't even get started on them, or one fills up the intestines; in either case there is no further digestion. But if the potatoes undergo a preparatory stage through cooking or some other means, then the stomach does not have so much to do, or the intestines either, and the potatoes go over properly into the blood and right up into the head. So you see, by cooking our foods, especially those that are counted among the carbohydrates, we are able to help our nutrition.

You are certainly acquainted with all the new kinds of foolishness in connection with nutrition—for instance, the raw food faddists, who are not going to cook anything anymore, they're going to eat everything raw. How does this come about? It's because people no longer know what's what from a materialistic science, and they shy away from a spiritual science, so they think a few things out on their own. The whole raw food fad is a fantasy. For a time someone living on raw food can whip the body along—in this situation the body has to be using very strong forces, so it has to be whipped—but then it will collapse all the more completely.

But now, gentlemen, let us come to the fats. Plants, almost all of them, contain fats which they derive from the minerals. Now fats do not enter the human body so easily as carbohydrates and minerals. Minerals are not even changed. For example, when you shake salt into your soup, that salt goes almost unchanged up into your head. You get it as salt in your head. But when you eat potatoes, you don't get potatoes in your head, you get sugar. The conversion takes place as I described to you. With the fats, however, whether they're plant fats or animal fats, it's not such a simple matter. When fats are eaten, they are almost entirely eaten up by the saliva, by the gastric secretions, by the intestinal secretions, and they become something quite different that then goes over into the blood. The animal and the human being must form their own fats in their intestines and in their blood, with forces which the fats they eat call forth.

You see, that is the difference between fats and sugar or minerals. The human being still takes his salt and his sugar from nature. He has to derive the sugar from the potato and the rye and so on, but there is still something of nature in it. But with the fats that man or animal have in them, there is nothing anymore of nature. They have formed them themselves. The human being would have no strength if he did not eat; his intestines and blood need fats. So we can say: Man himself cannot form minerals. If he did not take in minerals, his body would never be able to build them by itself. If he did not take in carbohydrates, if he did not eat bread or something similar from which he gets carbohydrates, he would never be able to form sugar by himself. And if he could not form sugar, he would be a weakling forever. So be grateful for the sugar, gentlemen! Because you are chock-full of sweetness, you have strength. The moment you would no longer be full to the brim with your own sweetness, you would have no strength, you would collapse.

And you know, that holds good even in connection with the various peoples. There are certain peoples who consume very little sugar or foodstuffs that produce sugar. These peoples have weak physical forces. Then there are certain peoples who eat many carbohydrates that form sugar, and they are strong.

But the human being doesn't have it so easy with the fats. If someone has fats in him (and this is true also of the animals), that is his own accomplishment, the accomplishment of his body. Fats are entirely his own production. The human being destroys whatever fats he takes in, plant fats or animal fats, and through their destruction he develops strength. With potatoes, rye, wheat, he develops strength by converting the substances. With the fats that he eats, he develops strength by destroying the substances.

If I destroy something outside of myself, I become tired and exhausted. And if I have had a big fat beefsteak and destroy that inside myself, I become weak in the same way; but my destruction of the fat beefsteak or of the plant fat gives me strength again, so that I can produce my own fat if my body is predisposed to it. So you see, the consumption of fat works very differently in the human body from the consumption of carbohydrates. The human body, gentlemen, is exceedingly complicated, and what I have been describing to you is tremendous work. Much must take place in the human body for it to be able to destroy those plant fats.

But now let us think how it is when someone eats green stuff, the stems and leaves of a plant. When he eats green stuff he is getting fats from the plants. Why is it that sometimes a stem is so hard? Because it then gives its forces to leaves that are going to be rich in carbohydrates. And if the leaves stay green—the greener they are, the more fats they have in them. So when someone eats bread, for instance, he can't take in many fats from the bread. He takes in more, for example, from watercress—that tiny plant with the very tiny leaves—more fats than when he eats bread. That's how the custom came about of putting butter on our bread, some kind of fat. It wasn't lust for the taste. And why country people want bacon with their bread. There again is fat, and that also is eaten for two reasons.

When I eat bread, the bread works upon my head because the root elements of a plant work up into the stem. The stem, even though it is stem and grows above the ground in the air, still has root forces in it. The question is not whether something is above in the air, but whether it has any root forces. Now the leaf, the green leaf, does not have root forces. No green leaf ever appears down in the earth. In late summer and autumn, when the sun forces are no longer working so strongly, the stem can mature. But the leaf needs the strongest sun forces for it to unfold; it grows toward the sun. So we can say, the green part of the plant works particularly on heart and lungs, while the root strengthens the head. The potato also is able to work into the head. When we eat greens, they give us particularly plant fats; they strengthen our heart and lungs, the middle man, the chest man.

That, I would say, is the secret of human nutrition: that if I want to work upon my head, I have roots or stems for dinner. If I want to work upon my heart or my lungs, I make myself a green salad. And in this case, because these substances are destroyed in the intestines and only their forces proceed to work, cooking is not so necessary. That's why leaves can be eaten raw as salad. Whatever is to work on the head cannot be eaten raw; it must be cooked. Cooked foods work particularly on the head. Lettuce and similar things work particularly on heart and lungs, building them up, nourishing them through the fats.

But now, gentlemen, the human being must not only nurture the head and the middle body, the breast region, but he must nurture the digestive organs themselves. He needs a stomach, intestines, kidneys, and a liver, and he must build up these digestive organs himself. Now the interesting fact is this: to build up his digestive organs he needs protein for food, the protein that is in plants, particularly as contained in their blossoms, and most particularly in their fruit. So we can say: the root nourishes the head particularly [see drawing above]; the middle of the plant, stem and leaves, nourishes the chest particularly; and fruit nourishes the lower body.

When we look out at our grain fields we can say, Good that they are there! for that nourishes our head. When we look down at the lettuce we've planted, all those leaves that we eat without cooking because they are easily digested in the intestines—and it's their forces that we want—there we get everything that maintains our chest organs. But cast an eye up at the plum and apples, at the fruits growing on the trees—ah! those we don't have to bother to cook much, for they've been cooked by the sun itself during the whole summer! There an inner ripening has already been happening, so that they are something quite different from the roots, or from stalks and stems (which are not ripened but actually dried up by the sun). The fruits, as I said, we don't have to cook much—unless we have a weak organism, in which case the intestines cannot destroy the fruits. Then we must cook them; we must have stewed fruit and the like. If someone has intestinal illnesses, he must be careful to take his fruit in some cooked form—sauce, jam, and so forth. If one has a perfectly healthy digestive system, a perfectly healthy intestinal system, then fruits are the right thing to nourish the lower body, through the protein they contain. Protein from any of the fruits nourishes your stomach for you, nourishes all your digestive organs in your lower body.

You can see what a good instinct human beings have had for these things! Naturally, they have not known in concepts all that I've been telling you, but they have known it instinctively. They have always prepared a mixed diet of roots, greens and fruit; they have eaten all of them, and even the comparative amounts that one should have of these three different foods have been properly determined by their instinct.

But now, as you know, people not only eat plants, they eat animals too, the flesh of animals, animal fat and so on.

Certainly it is not for anthroposophy ever to assume a fanatical or a sectarian attitude. Its task is only to tell how things are. One simply cannot say that people should eat only plants, or that they should also eat animals, and so on. One can only say that some people with the forces they have from heredity are simply not strong enough to perform within their bodies all the work necessary to destroy plant fats, to destroy them so completely that then forces will develop in their bodies for producing their own fat. You see, a person who eats only plant fats—well, either he's renounced the idea of becoming an imposing, portly fellow, or else he must have an awfully good digestive system, so healthy that it is easy for him to destroy the plant fats and in this way get forces to build his own fat. Most people are really unable to produce their own fat if they have only plant fats to destroy. When one eats animal fat in meat, that is not entirely destroyed. Plant fats don't go out beyond the intestines, they are destroyed in the intestines. But the fat contained in meat does go beyond, it goes over into the human being. And the person may be weaker than if he were on a diet of just plant fats.

Therefore, we must distinguish between two kinds of bodies. First there are the bodies that do not like fat, they don't enjoy eating bacon, they just don't like to eat fatty foods. Those are bodies that destroy plant fats comparatively easily and want in that way to form their own fat. They say: “Whatever fat I carry around, I want to make myself; I want my very own fat.” But if someone heaps his table with fatty foods, then he's not saying, “I want to make my own fat”; he's saying, “The world has to give me my fat.” For animal fat goes over into the body, making the work of nutrition easier.

When a child sucks a candy, he's not doing that for nourishment. There is, to be sure, something nutritious in it, but the child doesn't suck it for that; he sucks it for the sweet taste. The sweetness is the object of his consciousness. But if an adult eats beef fat, or pork fat, or the like, well, that goes over into his body. It satisfies his craving just as the candy satisfies the child's craving. But it is not quite the same, for the adult feels this craving inside him. The adult needs this inner craving in order to respond to his inner being. That is why he loves meat. He eats it because his body loves it.

But it is no use being fanatic about these things. There are people who simply cannot live if they don't have meat. A person must consider carefully whether he really will be able to get on without it. If he does decide he can do without it and changes over from a meat to a vegetarian diet, he will feel stronger than he was before. That's sometimes a difficulty, obviously: some people can't bear the thought of living without meat. If, however, one does become a vegetarian, he feels stronger—because he is no longer obliged to deposit alien fat in his body; he makes his own fat, and this makes him feel stronger.

I know this from my own experience. I could not otherwise have endured the strenuous exertion of these last twenty-four years! I never could have traveled entire nights, for instance, and then given a lecture the next morning. For it is a fact, that if one is a vegetarian one carries out a certain activity within one that is spared the non-vegetarian, who has it done first by an animal. That's the important difference.

But now don't get the idea that I would ever agitate for vegetarianism! It must always be first established whether a person is able to become a vegetarian or not; it is an individual matter.

You see, this is especially important in connection with protein. One can digest protein if one is able to eat plant protein and break it down in the intestines. And then one gets the forces from it. But the moment the intestines are weak, one must get the protein externally, which means one must eat the right kind of protein, which will be animal protein. Hens that lay eggs are also animals! So protein is something that is really judged quite falsely unless it is considered from an anthroposophical point of view.

When I eat roots, their minerals go up into my head. When I eat salad greens, their forces go to my chest, lungs, and heart—not their fats, but the forces from their fats. When I eat fruit, the protein from the fruit stays in the intestines. And the protein from animal substances goes beyond the intestines into the body; animal protein spreads out. One might think, therefore, that if a person eats plenty of protein, he will be a well-nourished individual. This has led to the fact in this materialistic age that people who had studied medicine were recommending excessive amounts of protein for the average diet: they maintained that one hundred and twenty to one hundred and fifty grams of protein were necessary—which was ridiculous. Today it is known that only a quarter of that amount is necessary. And actually, if a person does eat such enormous and unnecessary amounts of protein—well, then something happens as it once did with a certain professor and his assistant.

They had a man suffering from malnutrition and they wanted to build him up with protein. Now it is generally recognized that when someone is consuming large amounts of protein—it is, of course, converted in him—his urine will show that he has had it in his diet. So now it happened with these two that the man's urine showed no sign of the protein being present in his body. It didn't occur to them that it had already passed through the intestines. The professor was in a terrible state. And the assistant was shaking in his boots as he said timidly: “Sir—Professor—perhaps—through the intestines?” Of course!

What had happened? They had stuffed the man with protein and it was of no use to him, for it had gone from the stomach into the intestines and then out behind. It had not spread into the body at all. If one gulps down too much protein, it doesn't go over into the body at all, but into the fecal waste matter. Even so, the body does get something from it: before it passes out, it lies there in the intestines and becomes poisonous and poisons the whole body. That's what can happen from too much protein. And from this poisoning comes then very frequently arteriosclerosis—so that many people get arteriosclerosis too early, simply from stuffing themselves with too much protein.

It is important, as I have tried to show you, to know these things about nutrition. For most people are thoroughly convinced that the more they eat, the better they are nourished. Of course it is not true. One is often much better nourished if one eats less, because then one does not poison oneself.

The point is really that one must know how the various substances work. One must know that minerals work particularly on the head; carbohydrates—just as they are to be found in our most common foods, bread and potatoes, for instance—work more on the lung system and throat system (lungs, throat, palate and so on). Fats work particularly on heart and blood vessels, arteries and veins, and protein particularly on the abdominal organs. The head has no special amount of protein. What protein it does have—naturally, it also has to be nourished with protein, for after all, it consists of living substances—that protein man has to form himself. And if one over-eats, it's no use believing that in that way one is getting a healthy brain, for just the opposite is happening: one is getting a poisoned brain.

 Protein: abdominal organs Fats: heart and blood vessels Carbohydrates: lungs, throat, palate Minerals: head 

Perhaps we should devote another session to nutrition! That would be good, because these questions are very important. So then, Saturday at nine o'clock.

Rudolf Steiner: Today I would like to add a little more in answer to Herr Burle's question last Thursday. You remember that I spoke of the four substances necessary to human nutrition: minerals, carbohydrates, which are to be found in potatoes, but especially in our held grains and legumes, then fats, and protein. I pointed out how different our nutrition is with regard to protein as compared, for instance, to salt. A man takes salt into his body and it travels all the way to his head, in such a way that the salt remains salt. It is really not changed except that it is dissolved. It keeps its forces as salt all the way to the human head. In contrast to this, protein—the protein in ordinary hens' eggs, for instance, but also the protein from plants—this protein is at once broken down in the human body, while it is still in the stomach and intestines; it does not remain protein. The human being possesses forces by which he is able to break down this protein. He also has the forces to build something up again, to make his own protein. He would not be able to do this if he had not already broken down other protein.

Now think how it is, gentlemen, with this protein. Imagine that you have become an exceptionally clever person, so clever that you are confident you can make a watch. But you've never seen a watch except from the outside, so you cannot right off make a watch. But if you take a chance and you take some watch to pieces, take it all apart and lay out the single pieces in such a way that you observe just how the parts relate to one another, then you know how you are going to put them all together again. That's what the human body does with protein. It must take in protein and take it all apart.

Protein consists of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sulphur. Those are its most important components. And now the protein is completely separated into its parts, so that when it all reaches the intestines, man does not have protein in him, but he has carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulphur. You see how it is?—now the man has the protein all laid out in its parts as you had the watch all laid out on the table. So now you will say, Sure! when I took that watch apart, I observed it very carefully, and now I can make watches. Likewise I only need to eat protein once; after that, I can make it myself. But it doesn't happen that way, gentlemen. A human being has his memory as a complete human entity; his body by itself does not have the kind of memory that can take note of something, it uses its “memory” forces just for building itself up. So one must always be eating new protein in order to be able to make a protein.

The fact is, the human being is involved in a very, very complicated activity when he manufactures his own protein. First he divides the protein he has eaten into its separate parts and puts the carbon from it into his body everywhere. Now you already know that we inhale oxygen from the air and that this oxygen combines with the carbon we have in us from proteins and other food elements. And we exhale carbon in carbon dioxide, keeping a part of it back. So now we have that carbon and oxygen together in our body. We do not retain and use the oxygen that was in the protein; we use the oxygen we have inhaled to combine with the carbon. Thus we do not make our own protein as the materialists describe it: namely, that we eat a great many eggs which then are deposited throughout our body so that eggs we have eaten are spread over our whole body. That is not true.

Actually, we are saved by the organization of our body so that when we eat eggs, we don't all turn into crazy hens! It's a fact. We don't become crazy hens because we break the protein down in our intestines and instead of using the oxygen that was in the protein, we use oxygen coming out of the air. Also, as we breathe oxygen in we breathe nitrogen in too; nitrogen is always in the air. Again, we don't use the nitrogen that comes to us in the hens' eggs; we use the nitrogen we breathe in from the air. And the hydrogen we've eaten in eggs, we don't use that either, not at all. We use the hydrogen we take in through our nose and our ears, through all our senses; that's the hydrogen we use to make our protein. Sulphur too—we receive that continually from the air. Hydrogen and sulphur we get from the air. From the protein we eat, we keep and use only the carbon. The other substances, we take from the air. So you see how it is with protein.

There is a similar situation with fat. We make our own protein, using only the carbon from the external protein. And we also make our own fat. For the fats too, we use very little nitrogen from our food. So you see, we produce our own protein and fat. Only what we consume in potatoes, legumes, and grains goes over into our body. In fact, even these things do not go fully into our body, but only to the lower part of our head. The minerals we consume go up into the entire head; from them we have what we need to build up our bones.

Therefore you see, gentlemen, we must take care to bring healthy plain protein into our body. Healthy plant protein! That is what our body needs in large quantity. When we take in protein from eggs, our body can be rather lazy; it can easily break the protein down, because that protein is easily broken down. But plant protein, which we get from fruit—it is chiefly in that part of the plant, as I told you on Thursday—that is especially valuable to us. If a person wants to keep himself healthy, it is really necessary to include fruit in his diet. Cooked or raw, but fruit he must have. If he neglects to eat fruit, he will gradually condemn his body to a very sluggish digestion.

You can see that it is also a question of giving proper nourishment to the plants themselves. And that means, we must realize that plants are living things; they are not minerals, they are something alive. A plant comes to us out of the seed we put in the ground. The plant cannot flourish unless the soil itself is to some degree alive. And how do we make the soil alive? By manuring it properly. Yes, proper manuring is what will give us really good plant protein.

We must remember that for long, long ages men have known that the right manure is what comes out of the horses' stalls, out of the cow-barn and so on; the right manure is what comes off the farm itself. In recent times when everything has become materialistic, people have been saying: Look here! we can do it much more easily by finding out what substances are in the manure and then taking them out of the mineral kingdom: mineral fertilizer!

And you can see, gentlemen, when one uses mineral fertilizer, it is as if one just put minerals into the ground; then only the root becomes strong. Then we get from the plants the substance that helps to build up our bones. But we don't get a proper protein from the plants. And the plants, our field grains have suffered from the lack of protein for a long time. And the lack will become greater and greater unless people return to proper manuring.

There have already been agricultural conferences in which the farmers have said: Yes, the fruit gets worse and worse! And it is true. But naturally the farmers haven't known the reason. Every older person knows that when he was a young fellow, everything that came out of the fields was really better. It's no use thinking that one can make fertilizer simply by combining substances that are present in cow manure. One must see clearly that cow manure does not come out of a chemist's laboratory but out of a laboratory that is far more scientific—it comes from the far, far more scientific laboratory inside the cow. And for this reason cow manure is the stuff that not only makes the roots of plants strong, but that works up powerfully into the fruits and produces good, proper protein in the plants which makes man vigorous.

If there is to be nothing but the mineral fertilizer that has now become so popular, or just nitrogen from the air—well, gentlemen, your children, more particularly, your grandchildren will have very pale faces. You will no longer see a difference between their faces and their white hands. Human beings have a lively, healthy color when the farmlands are properly manured.

So you see, when one speaks of nutrition one has to consider how the foodstuffs are being obtained. It is tremendously important. You can see from various circumstances that the human body itself craves what it needs. Here's just one example: people who are in jail for years at a stretch, usually get food that contains very little fat, so they develop an enormous craving for fat; and when sometimes a drop of wax falls on the floor from the candle that the guard carries into a cell, the prisoner jumps down at once to lick up the fat. The human body feels the lack so strongly if it is missing some necessary substance. We don't notice this if we eat properly and regularly from day to day; then it never happens that our body is missing some essential element. But if something is lacking in the diet steadily for weeks, then the body becomes exceedingly hungry. That is also something that must be carefully noticed.

I have already pointed out that many other things are connected with fertilizing. For instance, our European forefathers in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, or still earlier, were different from ourselves in many ways. One doesn't usually pay any attention to that fact. Among other things, they had no potatoes! Potatoes were not introduced until later. The potato diet has exercised a strong influence. When grains are eaten, the heart and lungs become particularly strong. Grains strengthen heart and lungs. A man then develops a healthy chest and he is in fine health. He is not so keen on thinking as on breathing, perhaps; but he can endure very much when he has good breathing. And let me say right here: don't think that someone has strong lungs if he's always opening the window and crying, “Let's get some fresh air in here!” No! a person has strong lungs if he is so conditioned that he can endure any kind of air. The toughened-up person is not the one who can't bear anything but the one who can!

In these days there is much talk about being hardy. Think how the children are “hardened”! Nowadays (in wealthy homes, of course, but then other people quickly follow suit) the children are dressed—well, when we were children, we wore long breeches and were well covered—at the most, we went barefoot—now, the clothes only go down to the knee or are still shorter. If parents knew that this is the best preparation for later attacks of appendicitis, they would be more thoughtful. But fashion is a tyrant!—no thought is given to the matter, and the children are dressed so that their little dresses only reach to the knee, or less. Someday they will only reach to the stomach—that will be the fashion! Fashion has a strong influence.

But what is really at stake? People pay no attention to it. It is this: A human being is constituted throughout his organism so that he is truly capable of doing inner work on all the food he consumes. And in this connection it is especially important to know that a man becomes strong when he works properly on the foods he eats. Children are not made stronger by the treatment I have just mentioned. They are so “hardened” that later in their life—just watch them!—when they have to cross an empty square with the hot sun beating down on them, they drip with perspiration and they can't make it. Someone has not become toughened up when he is not able to stand anything; the person who can endure all possible hardships is the one who has been toughened up. So, in earlier days people were not toughened up; yet they had healthy lungs, healthy hearts, and so on.

And then came the potato diet! The potato takes little care of lung and heart. It reaches the head, but only, as I said, the lower head, not the upper head. It does go into the lower head, where one thinks and exercises critical faculties. Therefore, you can see, in earlier times there were fewer journalists. There was no printing industry yet. Think of the amount of thought expended daily in this world in our time, just to bring the newspapers out! All that thinking, it is much too much, it is not at all necessary—and we have to thank the potato diet for that! Because a person who eats potatoes is constantly stimulated to think. He can't do anything but think. That's why his lungs and his heart become weak. Tuberculosis, lung tuberculosis, did not become widespread until the potato diet was introduced. And the weakest human beings are those living in regions where almost nothing else is grown but potatoes, where the people live on potatoes.

It is spiritual science that is able to know these material facts. (I have said this often.) Materialistic science knows nothing about nutrition; it has no idea what is healthy food for humanity. That is precisely the characteristic of materialism, that it thinks and thinks and thinks—and knows nothing. The truth is finally this: that if one really wants to participate in life, above all one has to know something! Those are the things I wanted to say about nutrition.

And now perhaps you may still like to ask some individual questions?

Question: Dr. Steiner, in your last talk you mentioned arteriosclerosis. It is generally thought that this illness comes from eating a great deal of meat and eggs and the like. I know someone in whom the illness began when he was fifty; he had become quite stiff by the time he was seventy. But now he is eighty-five or eighty-six, and he is much more active than he was in his fifties and sixties. Has the arteriosclerosis receded! Is that possible? Or is there some other reason, Perhaps I should mention that this person has never smoked and has drunk very little alcohol; he has lived a really decent life. But in his earlier years he did eat rather a lot of meat. At seventy he could do very little work, but now at eighty-five he is continually active.

Dr. Steiner: So—I understand you to say that this person became afflicted with arteriosclerosis when he was fifty, that he became stiff and could do very little work. You did not say whether his memory deteriorated; perhaps you did not notice. His condition continued into his seventies; then he became active again, and he is still living. Does he still have any symptom of his earlier arteriosclerosis or is he completely mobile and active?

Questioner: Today he is completely active and more mobile than when he was sixty-five or seventy. He is my father.

Dr. Steiner: Well, first of all we should establish the exact nature of his earlier arteriosclerosis. Usually arteriosclerosis takes hold of a person in such a way that his arteries in general become sclerotic. Now if a man's arteries in general are sclerotic, he naturally becomes unable to control his body with his soul and spirit, and the body becomes rigid. Now it can also happen that someone has arteriosclerosis but not in his whole body; the disease, for instance, could have spared his brain. Then the following is the case. You see, I am somewhat acquainted with your own condition of health. I don't know your father, but perhaps we can discover something about your father's health from your own. For instance, you suffer somewhat, or have suffered (I hope it will be completely cured), from hay fever. That means that you carry in you something that the body can develop only if there is no tendency to arteriosclerosis in the head, but only outside the head. No one who is predisposed to arteriosclerosis in his entire body can possibly suffer an attack of hay fever. For hay fever is the exact opposite of arteriosclerosis. Now you suffer from hay fever. That shows that your hay fever—of course it is not pleasant to have hay fever, it's much better to have it cured; but we are talking of the tendency to have it—your hay fever is a kind of safety valve against arteriosclerosis.

But everyone gets arteriosclerosis to a small degree. One can't grow old without having it. If one gets it in the entire body, that's different: then one can't help oneself, one becomes rigid through one's whole body. But if one gets arteriosclerosis in the head and not in the rest of the body, then—well, if one is growing old properly, the etheric body is growing stronger and stronger (I've spoken of this before), and it no longer has such great need of the brain, and so the brain can now become old and stiff. The etheric body can control this slight sclerotic condition—which in earlier years made one old and stiff altogether; now the etheric body can control it very cleverly so that it is no longer so severe.

Your father, for example, does not need to have had hay fever himself; he can just have had the tendency to it. And you see, just this tendency to it has been of benefit to him. One can even say—it may seem a little farfetched, but a person who has a tendency to hay fever can even say, Thank God I have this tendency! The hay fever isn't bothering me now, and it gives me permanently the predisposition to a softening of the vessels. Even if the hay fever doesn't come out, it is protecting him from arteriosclerosis. And if he has a son, the son can have the hay fever externally. A son can suffer externally from some disease that in the father was pushed inward.

Indeed, that is one of the secrets of heredity: that many things become diseases in the descendants which in the forefathers were aspects of health. Diseases are classified as arteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cirrhosis, dyspepsia, and so forth. This can be written up very attractively in a book; one can describe just how these illnesses progress. But one hasn't obtained much from it, for the simple reason that arteriosclerosis, for instance, is different in every single person. No two persons have arteriosclerosis alike; everyone becomes afflicted in a different way. That is really so, gentlemen. And it shouldn't surprise anyone.

There were two professors at Berlin University. One was seventy years old, the other ninety-two. The younger one was quite well-known; he had written many books. But he was a man who lived with his philosophy entirely within materialism; he only had thoughts that were stuck deep in materialism. Now such thoughts also contribute to arteriosclerosis. And he got arteriosclerosis. When he reached seventy, he was obliged to retire. The colleague who was over ninety was not a materialist; he had stayed a child through most of his life, and was still teaching with tremendous liveliness. He said, “Yes, that colleague of mine, that young boy! I don't understand him. I don't want to retire yet, I still feel so young.” The other one, the “boy,” was disrobed, could no longer teach. Of course the ninety-two-year-old had also become sclerotic with his years, his arteries were completely sclerotic, but because of his mobility of soul he could still do something with those arteries. The other man had no such possibility.

And now something more in answer to Herr Burle's question about carrots. Herr Burle said, “The human body craves instinctively what it needs. Children often take a carrot up in their hands. Children, grownups too, are sometimes forced to eat food that is not good for them. I think this is a mistake when someone has a loathing for some food. I have a boy who won't eat potatoes.”

Gentlemen, you need only think of this one thing: if animals did not have an instinct for what was good for them, and what was bad for them, they would all long since have perished. For animals in a pasture come upon poisonous plants too—all of them—and if they did not know instinctively that they could not eat poisonous plants, they would certainly eat them. But they always pass them by.

But there is something more. Animals choose with care what is good for them. Have you sometimes fattened geese, crammed them with food? Do you think the geese would ever do that themselves? It is only humans who force the geese to eat so much. With pigs it is different; but how thin do you think our pigs might be if we did not encourage them to eat so much? In any case, with pigs it is a little different. They have acquired their characteristics through inheritance; their ancestors had to become accustomed to all the foods that produce fat. These things were taken up in their food in earlier times. But the primeval pigs had to be forced to eat it! No animal ever eats of its own accord what is not right for it.

But now, gentlemen, what has materialism brought about? It no longer believes in such an instinct.

I had a friend in my youth with whom I ate meals very often. We were fairly sensible about our food and would order what we were in the habit of thinking was good for us. Later, as it happens in life, we lost track of each other, and after some years I came to the city where he was living, and was invited to have dinner with him. And what did I see? Scales beside his plate! I said, “What are you doing with those scales?” I knew, of course, but I wanted to hear what he would say. He said, “I weigh the meat they bring me, to eat the right amount—the salad too.” There he was, weighing everything he should put on his plate, because science told him to. And what had happened to him? He had weaned himself completely from a healthy instinct for what he should eat and finally no longer knew! And you remember?—it used to be in the book: “a person needs from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and fifty grams of protein”; that, he had conscientiously weighed out. Today the proper amount is estimated to be fifty grams, so his amount was incorrect.

Of course, gentlemen, when a person has diabetes, that is obviously a different situation. The sugar illness, diabetes, shows that a person has lost his instinct for nutrition.

There you have the gist of the matter. If a child has a tendency to worms, even the slightest tendency, he will do everything possible to prevent them. You'll be astonished sometimes to see such a child hunting for a garden where there are carrots growing, and then you'll find him there eating carrots. And if the garden is far off that doesn't matter, the child trudges off to it anyway and finds the carrots—because a child who has a tendency to worms longs for carrots.

And so, gentlemen, the most useful thing you can possibly do is this: observe a child when he is weaned, when he no longer has milk, observe what he begins to like to eat and not like to eat. The moment a child begins to take external nourishment, one can learn from him what one should give him. The moment one begins to urge him to eat what one thinks he should eat, at that moment his instinct is spoilt. One should give him the things for which he shows an instinctive liking. Naturally, if a fondness for something threatens to go too far, one has to dam it up—but then one must carefully observe what it is that one is damming up.

For instance, perhaps in your own opinion you are giving a child every nice thing, and yet the moment that child comes to the table he cannot help jumping up on his chair and leaning over the table to sneak a lump of sugar! That's something that must be regarded in the right way. For a child who jumps up on his chair to sneak a lump of sugar obviously has something the matter with his liver. Just the simple fact that he must sneak a bit of sugar, is a sign that his liver is not in order. Only those children sneak sugar who have something wrong with their livers—it is then actually cured by the sugar. The others are not interested in sugar; they ignore it. Naturally, such a performance can't be allowed to become a habit; but one must have understanding for it. And one can understand it in two directions.

You see, if a child is watching all the time and thinking, when will Father or Mother not be looking, so that I can take that sugar: then later he will sneak other things. If you satisfy the child, if you give him what he needs, then he doesn't become a thief. It is of great importance from a moral point of view whether one observes such things or not. It is very important, gentlemen.

And so the question that was asked just now must be answered in this way: One should observe carefully what a child likes and what he loathes, and not force him to eat what he does not like. If it happens, for instance, as it does with very many children, that he doesn't want to eat meat, then the fact is that the child gets intestinal toxins from meat and wants to avoid them. His instinct is right. Any child who can sit at a table where everyone else is eating meat and can refuse it has certainly the tendency to develop intestinal toxins from meat. These things must be considered.

You can see that science must become more refined. Science must become much more refined! Today it is far too crude. With those scales, with everything that is carried on in the laboratories, one can't really pursue pure science.

With nutrition, which is the thing particularly interesting us at this moment, it is really so, that one must acquire a proper understanding for the way it relates to the spirit. When people inquire in that direction, I often offer two examples. Think, gentlemen, of a journalist: how he has to think so much—and so much of it isn't even necessary. The man must think a great deal, he must think so many logical thoughts; it is almost impossible for any human being to have so many logical thoughts. And so you find that the journalist—or any other person who writes for a profession—loves coffee, quite instinctively. He sits in the coffee shop and drinks one cup after another, and gnaws at his pen so that something will come out that he can write down. Gnawing at his pen doesn't help him, but the coffee does, so that one thought comes out of another, one thought joins on to another.

And then look at the diplomats. If one thought joins on to another, if one thought comes out of another, that's bad for them! When diplomats are logical, they're boring. They must be entertaining. In society people don't like to be wearied by logical reasoning—“in the first place—secondly—thirdly”—and if the first and second were not there, the third and fourth would, of course, not have to be thought of! A journalist can't deal with anything but finance in a finance article. But if you're a diplomat you can be talking about night clubs at the same time that you're talking about the economy of country X, then you can comment on the cream-puffs of Lady So-and-So, then you can jump to the rich soil of the colonies, after that, where the best horses are being bred, and so on. With a diplomat one thought must leap over into another. So anyone who is obliged to be a charming conversationalist follows his instinct and drinks lots of tea.

Tea scatters thoughts; it lets one jump into them. Coffee brings one thought next to another. If you must leap from one thought to another, then you must drink tea. And one even calls them “diplomat teas”!—while there sits the journalist in the coffee shop, drinking one cup of coffee after another. You can see what an influence a particular food or drink can have on our whole thinking process. It is so, of course, not just with those two beverages, coffee and tea; one might say, those are extreme examples. But precisely from those examples I think you can see that one must consider these things seriously. It is very important, gentlemen.

So, we'll meet again next Wednesday at nine o'clock.

Rudolf Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Has anyone thought of a question?

Herr Dollinger: I would like to ask if Dr. Steiner would speak again about the creation of the world and man. There are many newcomers here who have not yet heard it.

Dr. Steiner: It is asked if I could speak again about the creation of the world and of humanity, since many new workers are here. I will do this by first describing the original conditions on the earth, which have led on the one hand to all that we see around us and on the other hand to man.

Now man is really a very, very complicated being. If people think they will be able to understand him by dissecting a human corpse, they are mistaken, for naturally they will not arrive at a real understanding. Just as little can they understand the world around us if all they do is collect stones and plants and look at the individual items. We must be able to realize that what we examine does not show at first sight what it actually is.

You see, if we look at a corpse, perhaps soon after the man has died—he still has the same form, if perhaps a little paler—we can see that death has seized him, but he still has the same form that he had when alive. But now think: how does this corpse look eventually if we do not cremate it but let it decay? It is destroyed; there is no longer anything at work in it that could build it up again; it is definitely destroyed.

The beginning of the Bible is very much smiled at, and indeed justifiably, when it is understood to say that once upon a time some god formed a man out of a clod of earth. People regard that as impossible and naturally they are right. No god can come along and make a human being out of a lump of earth; it would be no more a man than a statue is, however similar the form might be—no more than the mannequin children make can actually walk. So people smile rightly when some divinity is supposed to have made man out of a lump of earth.

That corpse that we were looking at is, in fact, after a certain time just such a clod of earth as it becomes in the grave somewhat decomposed, dissolved. So to believe that a human being can be made out of what we then have before us is really just as great a folly.

You see, on the one hand it is asserted today that it is incorrect to suppose that man could be formed from a lump of earth; on the other hand one is allowed to suppose that he consists of earth alone. If one wants to be logical, then the one is no better than the other. One must be clear that while the man lived there was something in him that gave him his shape and form, and when it is no longer in him he can no longer keep his form. Nature forces do not give him this form; nature forces merely break it apart, they do not make it grow. So we must go back to the soul and spirit of the man, which were really in control as long as he was living.

Now when we look at the lifeless stone outside, if we imagine that it has always been the same as it is today, that is just as if we would say of the corpse that it had always been like that even while the man was living. The stones that we see today in the world outside, the rocks, the mountains, are just the same as a corpse; in fact, they are a corpse! They were not always as they are today. Just as a human corpse was not always what it is now that the soul and spirit have gone, so what we see outside has not always been in its present condition. The fact that plants grow on the lifeless corpse, that is, on the rocks, need not surprise us; for when a human corpse decays, all sorts of tiny plants and tiny animals grow out of it.

Of course, what is outside in nature seems beautiful, and what we see on a corpse when all sorts of parasitic plants are growing out of it does not seem beautiful. But that is only because the one is gigantic in size and the other is small. If we were not human beings but were tiny beetles crawling about on a decaying corpse and could think like human beings, we would regard the bones of the corpse as rocks. We would consider what was decayed as rubble and stones; we would-since we were tiny beetles-see great forests in what was growing on the corpse; we would have a whole world to admire and not think it revolting as we do now.

Just as we must go back to what the man was before he died, so, in the case of the earth and our surroundings, we must go back to what once lived in all that today is lifeless, before indeed the earth as a whole died. Unless the earth as a whole had died there could be no human being. Human beings are parasites, as it were, on the present earth. The whole earth was once alive; it could think as you and I now think. But only when it became a corpse could it produce the human race. This is something really everyone can realize if he will just think. But people today do not want to think. Yet one must think if one would come to the truth.

We have, therefore, to imagine that what is today solid rock with plants growing, and so on, was originally entirely different. Originally there was a living, thinking, cosmic body-a living, thinking, cosmic body!

I have often said here: What do people today imagine? They imagine that originally there was a gigantic mist, that this primeval mist came into rotation, that the planets then split off, that the sun became the center. This is taught to children quite early, and a little experiment is made to show that everything really did start in that way. A few drops of oil are put in a glass of water; one lets the oil swim on the water. A piece of cardboard has a pin stuck through it; then with the pin one makes the cardboard revolve; little oil-drops split off, go on revolving, and a tiny planetary system actually forms with the sun in the center.¹

Well now, it is usually quite a virtue if one can forget oneself, but in this case the teacher should not! When he makes the experiment, he ought then to say to the children: Out there in the universe is a giant schoolteacher who did the rotating!

What it amounts to is thoughtlessness—not because the facts oblige one to be thoughtless, but because one wants to be. But in that way one doesn't arrive at the truth.

We must therefore imagine not that a gigantic schoolteacher was there who rotated the world mist, but that there was something in the world mist itself that was able to move and so on. But there we come back to the living. If we want to rotate, we don't need a pin stuck through us with which a teacher rotates us. That's not for us; we can rotate ourselves. This schoolroom variety of primeval mist would have to be rotated by a schoolteacher. But if it is living and can feel and think, then it needs no cosmic schoolteacher; it can cause the rotation itself.

So we must picture that what today is lifeless around us was once alive, was sensitive, was a cosmic being. If we look further, there was even a great number of cosmic beings animating the whole. The original conditions of the world are therefore due to the fact that there was Spirit within the substance.

Now what is it that underlies everything material? Imagine that I have a lump of lead in my hand, that is, solid matter, thoroughly solid matter. Now if I put this lead on red-hot iron or on anything red-hot, on fire, it turns to fluid. If I work on it still further with fire, the whole lead vanishes; it evaporates, and I see nothing more of it. It is the same with all substances. On what does it depend then that a substance is solid? It depends upon what warmth is in it. The appearance of a substance depends only upon how much warmth is in it.

You know, today one can make the air liquid, then one has liquid air. The air we have in our surroundings is only airy, gaseous, as long as it contains a definite amount of warmth. And water—water is fluid, but it can also become ice and therefore solid. If there were a certain cold temperature on our earth there would be no water, but only ice. Now let us go into our mountains: there we find the solid granite or other solid rock. But if it were immensely hot there, there would be no solid granite; it would be fluid and flow away like the water in our brooks.

What then is actually the original element that makes things solid or fluid or gaseous? It is heat! And unless heat is there in the first place, nothing at all can be solid or fluid. So we can say that heat or fire is what is underlying everything in the beginning.

That is also shown by the research of spiritual science or anthroposophy. Spiritual science shows that originally there was not a primeval mist, a lifeless mist, but that living warmth was there at the beginning, simple living warmth. Thus I will assume an original cosmic body that was living warmth. [See drawing – red.] In my Occult Science I have called this original warmth condition the “Saturn condition”; it has been called this from ancient times, and though one must have a name, it is not the name that matters. It has, in fact, something to do with the cosmic body Saturn, but we will not go into that now.

In this original condition there were as yet no solid bodies and no air, only warmth; but the warmth was living. When you freeze today, it's your ego that freezes; when you sweat today, it's your ego that sweats, that becomes thoroughly hot. You are always in warmth, sometimes heat, sometimes cold, but always in some kind of warmth. In fact, we can still see today that man lives in warmth. The human being lives absolutely in warmth.

When modern science says that originally there was great heat, in a certain sense it is right; but when it thinks that this great heat was dead, then it is wrong. There was a living cosmic being, a thoroughly living cosmic being.

Now the first thing to come about in connection with this warmth-being was a cooling down. Things cool down continually. And what happens when what has been nothing but warmth now cools down? Air arises, air, the gaseous state. For when we go on heating a solid object, gas is formed in the warmth; but when something not yet substance cools down from above downwards, air is formed at first. So we can say that the second condition to come about was gaseous, definitely airy. [See drawing-green.]

In what has been formed, in a certain sense, as a second cosmic body everything is air. There is as yet no water, nothing solid within it; it consists entirely of air.

So now we have the second condition that formed itself in the course of time. You see, in this second condition something else developed along with what was already there. I have called this second condition “Sun” in my Occult Science; it was not the present sun, but a kind of Sun condition, a warm air-mist. The present sun, as I have told you, is not that, nor is it what was originally this second cosmic body. Thus we get a second cosmic body formed out of the first; the first was pure warmth, the second was of an air-nature.

Now man can live in warmth as soul. Warmth gives the soul sensitive feeling and does not destroy it. It destroys the body, however; if I were thrown into the fire my body would be destroyed but not my soul. (We will speak of this more exactly later, for naturally the question needs to be considered in detail.) For this reason the human being could already live as soul during the first, the Saturn, condition. But although man could live then, the animal could not, for in the case of the animal when the body is destroyed the soul element is injured too. Fire has an influence on the soul element of the animal. In the first condition, therefore, we have man already present but not the animal.

When the transformation had taken place to the Sun condition [see drawing], both human being and animal were there. That is the important fact. It is not true that the animals were there originally and that man developed out of them. Man was there originally and afterwards the animals evolved out of what could not become man. Naturally the human being was not going about on two feet when there was only warmth—obviously not. He lived in the warmth and was a floating being; he had only a condition of warmth. Then as that was metamorphosed into an air-warmth-body, the animals were formed and appeared beside man. Thus the animals are indeed related to man, but they developed only later in the course of world evolution.

Now what more happened? The warmth decreased, and as it gradually decreased, not only was air formed but also water. Thus we have a third cosmic body. [See drawing—yellow.] I have called it “Moon” because it was slightly similar to our present moon, although it was not our present moon. It was a watery, a thoroughly watery body. Air and warmth naturally remained, but now water appeared which had not been present in the second condition. After the appearance of water there could be man, who was already there, animals, and, pushing up out of the water, plants. Plants originally grew in water, not in earth. So we have man, animal, plant.

You see, plants seem to grow out of the earth, but if the earth contained no water, no plants would grow; they need water for their growth. There are also as you know, aquatic plants, and you can think of the original plants as being similar to these; the original plants swam in the water. The animals too you must picture as swimming animals and in the former, second condition, even as flying animals.

Something still actually remains of all that was there originally. During the Sun condition, when only man and animal were in existence, everything had to fly, and since the air has remained and still exists, those flying creatures have their descendants. Our present birds are the descendants of the original animals that developed during the Sun condition. However, at that time they were not as they are today. Those animal creatures consisted purely of air; they were airy clouds. Here, later [Moon condition], they had water in them. Today—let us look at a bird. Usually a bird is observed very thoughtlessly. If we are to picture the animals as they existed during the Sun condition, we must say that they consisted only of air; they were hovering air-clouds. When we look at a bird today, we should realize that it has hollow bones filled with air. It is very interesting to see that in the present bird. There is air everywhere in this bird, in the bones, everywhere! Think away whatever is not air and you get an air-being—the bird. If it did not have this air, it could not fly at all. It has hollow bones; within, it is an air-bird, reminding us of former conditions. The rest of the body was built around it in later times. The birds are really the descendants of the Sun condition.

Look at modern man: He can live in the air, but he can't fly; he is too heavy to fly. He has not formed hollow bones for himself like the bird, or else he too could fly. Then he would not just have shoulder blades, but his shoulder blades would stretch out into wings. The human being still has the rudiments of wings up there in his shoulder blades; if these were to grow out, he would be able to fly.

Thus man lives in the air surrounding him. But this air must contain vapor. Man cannot live in purely dry air; he needs fluids.

There is a condition, however, in which the human being cannot live in the air: that is the very earliest human state, the embryo. One must look at these things rightly. During the embryonic time the human germ or embryo obtains air and all that it needs from the body of the mother. It must be in something living.

You see, it is like this: If the human embryo is removed by operation from the body of the mother, it cannot yet live in the air. During the embryonic condition the human being needs to have live surroundings. At the time when man, animal, and plant existed, but as yet no stones or minerals as we have them today, everything was alive and man lived surrounded by what was alive just as now he lives as embryo in the mother's body. Naturally he grew bigger. Think of this: If we did not have to be born and live in the air and breathe on our own, then our span of life would end with our birth. As embryo we could all live only ten moon-months. As a matter of fact, there are such creatures that live only ten months; these do not come to the outer air but get air from within a living environment. So it was with man a long time ago. He certainly grew older, but he never came out of the living element. He lived in that state all the time. He did not advance to birth; he lived as embryo. At that time there were as yet no minerals, no rocks.

If the body of a human being is dissected today, the same carbonate of lime will be found in his bones as you find here in the Jura Mountains. There is now a mineral substance inside the body that was not present in the earlier condition. In the embryo too, particularly in the first months, there is no deposit of mineral; everything is still fluid, only slightly thickened. And so it was during this earlier condition; man was not yet bony, having, at most, cartilage. Of such a human being we are reminded today only by the human embryo. Why cannot the human embryo come immediately out of the mother's body? Because the world today is a different world. As long as the Old Moon lasted—I will now call it the Old Moon, as it is not the present moon but the former state of the earth—as long as the Old Moon period lasted, the whole earth was a womb, inwardly alive, a real womb. There was nothing yet of stone or mineral. It was all a gigantic womb, and we can say that our present earth came forth from this gigantic womb.

Earlier this immense womb did not exist at all. What was it then? Well, in fact, earlier there was something else in existence. Let us just consider what came before. You see, if a human being is to develop in the mother's body, if he is to be an embryo, he must first be conceived. The conception takes place. But does nothing precede conception? What precedes conception is the monthly period in the woman; that is what precedes. A very special process takes place in the female organism that is connected with the expulsion of blood. But that is not the only thing; that is only the physical aspect. Every time the blood is expelled something of a spiritual-soul nature is born at the same time, and this remains. It does not become physical, because no conception has taken place. The spiritual-soul element remains without becoming a physical human body. What for a human being must be there before conception was also there during the cosmic Sun condition! The whole Sun was a cosmic being that from time to time expelled something spiritual. So man and animal lived in the air-like condition, thrust out, expelled by this whole body. Between one condition (Sun) and the other (Moon), it came about that the human being became a physical being in water. Formerly he was a physical being only in air. During this Moon condition we have something similar to conception, but not yet anything similar to birth. What was the nature of this conception during the ancient Moon condition?

The Moon was there, an entirely female being, and confronting it was not a male being, but all that was still outside its cosmic body at that time. Outside it were many other cosmic bodies that exerted an influence. Now comes the drawing which I have already made here.

So this cosmic body was there and around it the other cosmic bodies, exerting their influence in the most varied ways. Seeds came in from outside and fructified the whole Moon-Earth. And if you could have lived at that time and set foot on this primeval cosmic body, you would not have said when you saw all sorts of drops coming in “It is raining,” as one says today. At that time you would have said, “Earth is being fructified.” There were seasons when the fructifying seeds came in from all directions, and other seasons when they matured and no more came in. Thus at that time there was a cosmic fructification. But the human being was not born, only fructified; he was only called forth by conception. The human being came out of the entire Earth-body, or Moon-body, as it was then. In the same way fructification came from the whole cosmic surroundings for animal and plant.

Now later through further cooling there came about a hardening of all that lived then as man, animal, and plant. There, in the Moon condition we still have to do with water, at most, a hardening through the cooling. Here on the earth the solid, the mineral appears. So now we have a fourth condition [see drawing]: this is our earth as we have it today, and it contains man, animal, plant, mineral.

Let us just look at what the bird, for instance, has become on the earth. During this time (Sun condition) the bird was still a sort of air-sack, it consisted of nothing but air, a mass of air floating along. Then during this time (Moon condition) it became watery, a thickened watery thing, and it hovered as a kind of cloud—only not like our clouds but already containing a form. What for us are only formless water structures were at that time forms. There was a skeleton form, but it was fluid. But now came the mineral element, and this was incorporated into what was only water structure. Carbonate of lime, phosphatic lime and so on went the length of the skeleton, forming solid bones. So at first we have the air-bird, then the water-bird, and at last the solid earth-bird.

This could not be the same in the case of man. Man could not simply incorporate into himself what only arose as mineral during his embryonic period. The bird could do this—and why? You see, the bird acquired its air form here (Sun condition); it then lived through the water condition. It is essential for it not to let the mineral come too close to it during its germinal state. If the mineral came to it too soon, then it would just become a mineral and harden. The bird while it is developing is still somewhat watery and fluid; the mineral, however, wants to approach. What does the bird do? Well, it pushes it off, it makes something around itself, it makes the eggshell around itself! That is the mineral element. The eggshell remains as long as the bird must protect itself inwardly from the mineral; that is, as long as it must stay fluid. The reason for this is that the bird originated only during the second condition of the earth. If it had been there during the first condition, it would now be much more sensitive to warmth than it actually is. Since it was not there at that time, it can now form the hard eggshell around itself.

Man was already present during the first condition of the earth, the warmth condition, and therefore he cannot now hold off the mineral while he is in the embryonic stage. He can't build an eggshell; he must be organized differently. He must take up the mineral element from the womb, and so we have mineral formation already in the embryo at the end of its development. Man must absorb some mineral from the womb; therefore, the womb must first possess the mineral that is to be absorbed. So in the case of man the mineral element is incorporated quite differently. The bird has air-filled bones; we human beings have marrow-filled bones, very different from the bones of the bird. Through the fact of our having this marrow a human mother is able to provide mineral substance to the embryo within her. But once the mineral element is provided, the human being is no longer able to live in the womb environment and must gradually be born. He must first have acquired mineral constituents. With the bird it is not a matter of being born, but of creeping out of the eggshell; man is born without an eggshell. Why? Because man originated earlier and therefore everything can be done through warmth and not through air.

From this you can understand the differences that still exist and that can be observed today. The difference between an “egg-animal” and such a being as man, and also the higher mammals, lies in the fact that man is far older than, for instance, the bird species, far older than the minerals. Therefore, when he is quite young, during the embryonic stage in the womb, he must be protected from the mineral nature and may only be given the prepared mineral that comes from the mother. In fact, the mineral element prepared in the mother's body must even for a certain time after birth still be given to him in the mother's milk! While the bird can be fed at once with external substances, man and the higher animals can only be nourished by what the mother's body provides.

What the human being has today in our present Earth condition from the mother's body he had during the previous cosmic condition from the air, from the environment. What he had around him during his whole life was of a milk nature. Our air today contains oxygen and nitrogen but relatively little carbon and hydrogen and particularly very, very little sulphur. They have gone. During the Moon condition it was different; in the surrounding air there were not only oxygen and nitrogen but also hydrogen, carbon, sulphur. That made a sort of milky pap around the Moon, a quite thin milk-pap in which life existed. Today man still lives in a thin milk-pap before he is born! For it is only after his birth that the milk goes into the breast; before birth it is in those parts of the female body where the human embryo is lying. That is an amazing thing, that processes in the mother's organism that belong to the uterus before birth afterwards go to the breast. And so the Moon condition is still preserved in man before he is born, and the actual Earth condition only comes at the moment of birth with the Moon-nature still present in the breast milk.

This is how things connected with the origin of the earth and mankind must be explained. If people do not press forward to a spiritual science, they simply cannot solve the mystery of why a bird slips out of an egg and can at once be nourished with external substances, while a human being cannot slip out of an egg and must come out of the womb to be nourished by mother's milk. Why is it? It is because the bird originated later and is thus an external being. Man originated earlier, and when he was undergoing the Moon-condition, he was not yet as hardened as the bird. Hence today too he is not yet so hardened; he must still be more protected, for he has within him much more of the original conditions.

Since people today on the whole can no longer think properly, they misunderstand what exists on earth as plant, animal, and man. Thus materialistic Darwinism arose, which believed that the animals were there first and that man simply developed out of the animals. It is true that in his external form man is related to the animals, but he existed earlier, and the animals really developed later after the world had gone through a transformation. And so we can say that the animals we see now present a later stage of an earlier condition when they were indeed more closely related to man. But we must never allow ourselves to imagine that out of the present animals a human being could arise. That is a thoroughly false idea.

Now let us look not at the bird species but at the fishes. The bird species developed for the air, the fish species for the water. Not until what we call the Moon condition were certain earlier air-like bird-beings transformed in such a way as to become fishlike—because of the water. To the bird-like beings were added the fish. One could say that the fish are birds that have become watery, birds received by the water. You can gather from this that the fish appeared later than the birds; they appeared when the watery element was there, that is, during the Old Moon period.

And now you will no longer be astonished that everything swimming about in a watery state during the Old Moon time looked fish-like. The birds looked fish-like in spite of flying in the air and being lighter. Everything was fish-like. Now this is interesting: if we look today at a human embryo on about the 21st or 22nd day after conception, what is its appearance? There it swims in a fluid element in the mother's body, and it looks really like a tiny fish! The human being actually had this form during the ancient Moon period and he has it still in the third week of pregnancy; he has preserved it.

You can say, then, that man worked himself out of this Old Moon form, and we can still see by the fish form he has in the embryo how he has worked himself out. When we observe the present world, everywhere we can see how formerly it all had life, just as we know of a corpse that it had life earlier. So today I have described to you the earlier condition of what we now have on earth as mineral. We look at a corpse and say that he can no longer move his legs, his hands, no longer open his mouth or his eyes—everything has become immobile; yet that leads us back to a human state when everything could be moved—legs, arms, hands—when the eyes could be opened. In just the same way we look around us at the corpse of the earth, the remains of a living body, in which man and animal still wander about, and we look back to the time when the entire earth was once alive.

But there is something more. I said that with conception the potentiality of the physical human being is there, and gradually the embryo develops. I also described what happens earlier, the processes in the female organism, what is pushed out in the monthly periods, and how a spiritual element is pushed out too. Now in this process there is always something of the nature of fever, even in a perfectly normal, healthy woman. This is because there is a warmth condition; it is the warmth condition that has been preserved from the ancient first condition that I have in the drawing called Saturn. This fever condition still endures.

One can say that the whole of our evolution proceeded from a kind of fever condition of our earth, which the cooling down finally brought to an end. Most people today are no longer feverish but thoroughly dry and matter-of-fact. Yet even now, when there is something not caused by outside warmth but appearing inwardly as warmth, giving us something of an inward life, now too we have a condition of fever.

So it is, gentlemen: One sees everywhere in the conditions of present mankind how they can be traced back to conditions of the past. Today I have told you how man, animal, plant, and mineral gradually evolved as the entire cosmic body with which all are connected grew more and more solid.

We will speak further of all this—today is Monday—on Wednesday at nine o'clock.²

• 1. “The little Plateau experiment,” worked out by the physicist J.A.E Plateau, 1801 – 1883. Compare the description by Vincent Knauer in his lectures, “The Main Problem of Philosophy,” Vienna and Leipzig 1892: “One of the nicest experiments is the Plateau experiment. A mixture of water and alcohol is prepared, having the exact weight of pure olive oil. Into this is poured a rather large drop of oil. This does not float on top of the liquid but sinks to the middle of it, in the form of a ball. A small disc of cardboard is then perforated in the center by a long needle and lowered carefully into the middle of the ball of oil, so that the edge of the cardboard becomes the ‘equator’ of the ball. The disc is now set into motion, at first slowly, then faster and faster. Naturally the movement is imparted to the ball of oil, and as a result of the strength of the movement, parts of the oil drop away and continue the movement separately for some time, first in circles, then revolving as tiny balls. In this way there arises something surprisingly similar to our planetary system: in the center the largest globe, like our sun, and moving around it smaller balls and rings, like our planets with their moons.”
• 2. This lecture was postponed to Thursday, July 3rd.

Rudolf Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Today I would like to speak further about the creation of the earth and the origin of man. It has surely become clear from what I have already said that the earth was originally not what it is today, but was a kind of living being.

I described the condition that existed before our actual Earth condition by saying that warmth, air, and water were there but as yet no really solid mineral structures. Now you must not imagine that the water existing at that time looked like the present water. Our present water has become what it is by the separation of certain substances which were formerly dissolved in it. If you take a glass of ordinary water and put some salt in it, the salt dissolves in the water and you get a fluid-a salt solution, as one calls it-which is denser than the original water. If you put your fingers in it, it feels much denser than water. Now dissolved salt is relatively thin; with certain other substances one gets quite a thickish liquid.

The fluid condition, the water condition which existed in earlier ages of our earth was therefore not that of today's water. That did not exist, for substances were dissolved in the water everywhere. All the substances that you have today-the Jura limestone mountains, for instance-were dissolved; harder rocks that you can't scratch with a knife (limestone can always be scratched) were also dissolved in the water. During this Old Moon stage, therefore, one has to do with a thickish fluid that contained in solution all the substances which today are solid.

The thin water of today, which consists essentially of hydrogen and oxygen, was separated off later; it has developed only during the earth period itself. Thus we have as an original condition of the earth a densified fluid, and round about it a kind of air. But this was not the air of today; just as the water was not like our present water, so the air was not the same as our present air. Our present air contains essentially oxygen and nitrogen; the other substances which it still contains are present to a very slight degree. There are even metals still present in the air, but in exceedingly small quantities. For instance, there is one metal, sodium, that is everywhere in the air. Just think what that means—that sodium is everywhere, that a substance which is in the salt on your table is present everywhere in tiny quantities.

There are two substances—one is the sodium which I have just mentioned, which is present in small quantities in the air; then there is a substance of a gaseous nature which plays a great role when you bleach your laundry: chlorine. It causes the bleaching. Now the salt on your table is composed of sodium and chlorine, a combination of the two. Such things come about in nature.

You can ask how one knows that sodium is everywhere. It is possible today to tell from a flame what sort of substance is being burnt in it. For instance, you can get sodium in a metallic form and pulverize it and hold it in a flame. You can then find with an instrument called a spectroscope that there is a yellow line in it. There is another metal, for example, called lithium; if you hold that in the flame, you get a red line; the yellow is now not there, but there is a red line. One can prove with the spectroscope what substance is present.

But you get the yellow sodium line in almost every flame whenever you light one, without having put the sodium in yourself. Thus sodium is still in the air today. In earlier times immense quantities of metals and even of sulphur were present in the air. The air was quite saturated with sulphur. So there was a thickish water—if one had not been especially heavy one could have gone for a walk on it; it was like running tar—and there was a dense air, so dense that one could not have breathed in it with our present lungs. These were only formed later. The mode of life of the creatures that existed at that time was utterly different.

Now you must picture to yourselves that the earth once looked like this. (See drawing.) Had you found yourself there with your present eyes, you would not have discovered the stars and sun and moon out there, for you would have looked out into a vague ocean of air which reached an end eventually. If one could have lived then with the present sense organs, one would have seemed to be inside a world-egg beyond which one could see nothing. And you can imagine how different the earth looked at that time, like a kind of giant egg yolk, a thick fluid, and a thick air environment corresponding to the white of the present-day egg.

If you picture concretely what I have described, you will have to say: Well, beings such as we have today could not have lived at that time. Naturally, creatures like the elephant, and even human beings in their present form, would have sunk—nor could they have breathed. And because they could not have breathed, there were also no lungs as we know them now. Organs are formed entirely according to the function they are needed for. It is very interesting that an organ is simply not there if it is not needed. And so lungs only developed when the air was no longer so full of sulphur and metals as it had been in those ancient times.

Now to get an idea of what sort of creatures lived at that time, we must first look for those that lived in the thickish water. Creatures lived in that dense water that no longer exist today. Our present fish have their form because the water is thin. Even sea-water is comparatively thin; it contains much salt in solution, yet it is comparatively thin. But in that early time every possible substance was dissolved in the dense fluid, the dense ocean, of which, in fact, the whole earth, the Moon-sack consisted.

The creatures that were in it could not swim in our sense, because the water was too thick; nor could they walk, for one needs firm ground for walking. You can imagine that these creatures had a bodily structure somewhere between what one needs for swimming-fins—and what one needs for walking—feet. You know, of course, what a fin looks like—it has quite fine, spiky bones and the flesh in between is dried-up. So that we have a fin with practically no flesh on it and prickly bones transformed to spikes: that is a fin. Limbs that are suitable for moving forward on firm ground, that is, for walking or crawling, have their bones set into the interior and the outer bulk of flesh covers them. We can conceive of such limbs that have the flesh outside and the bones inside; there the bulk of flesh is the main thing. That belongs to walking, or swimming.

But at that time there was neither walking nor swimming, but something in between. These creatures therefore had limbs in which there was something of a thorn-like, nature, but also something like joints. They were really quite ingenious joints, and in between, the flesh mass was stretched out like an umbrella. You still see many swimming creatures today with a “swim skin”—a web—between the bones, and they are the last relics of what once existed in vast numbers. Creatures existed which stretched out their limbs so that the spreading flesh mass was supported by the dense fluid. And they had joints in their limbs—the fishes today have none—and with these they could direct their half-swimming, half-walking.

So we are made aware of animals which particularly needed such limbs. Today the limbs would look immensely coarse and clumsy; they were not fins, not feet, not hands, but clumsy appendages on the body, thoroughly appropriate for living in that thick fluid. This was one kind of animal. If we want to describe them further, we must say: They were especially organized in the parts of the body where these immense limbs could arise. All the rest of them was poorly developed. If you look at the toads and similar creatures existing today which sort of swim in the thick fluid of boggy marshes, then you have a feeble, shrunken reminder of the gigantic animals which lived once upon a time, which were heavy and clumsy but had diminutive heads like turtles.

Other creatures lived in the dense air. Our present birds have had to acquire what they need to live in our thin air; they have had to develop something of a lung nature. But the creatures that lived at that time in the air had no lungs; in that dense sulphurous air it would not have been possible to breathe with lungs. They absorbed the air as a kind of food. They could not have eaten in the present way, for it would all have remained lying in the stomach. Nor was there anything solid there to eat. All that they took in as food they took in out of the densified air. Into what did they take it? Well, they took it into what developed in them especially.

Now the flesh masses that existed in those so to say, gliding creatures (for they were not really walking and not really swimming), could not be used by the air-creatures, for these had to support themselves in the air, not swim in the dense fluid. It came about then that the flesh masses which had developed in the gliding, half-swimming creatures became adapted to the sulphurous condition of the air. The sulphur dried up these flesh masses and made them into what you see today as the birds' feathers. With this flesh mass or dried-up tissue the creatures could form the limbs they needed. They were not wings in the present sense, but they supported them in the air, and were something similar to the wings of today. They were very, very different in one respect: there is only one thing remaining from these wing-like structures, and that is moulting, when our present birds lose their feathers. These former creatures supported themselves in the dense air with the structures that were not yet feathers but rather dried-up tissue.

Moreover, these structures were actually half for breathing and half for taking in nourishment. What existed in the air environment was absorbed. These organs were not used for flying; these rudimentary “wings” were for absorbing the air and pushing it away. Today only moulting is left of this process. At that time, these structures served for taking in nourishment, that is, the bird puffed up its tissue with what it absorbed from the air and then gave out again what it did not need. So such a bird had a very remarkable structure indeed!

And so at that time there lived those terribly clumsy creatures below in the water-element—our present turtles are indeed fine princes by comparison! And above were these remarkable creatures. And whereas our present birds sometimes behave in the air unmannerly (which we take very much amiss), these bird-like creatures in the air of that time excreted continuously. What came from them rained down, and rained down especially at certain times. The creatures below did not yet have the attitude which we have. We are indignant if sometimes a bird behaves in an unseemly way. But those creatures below in the fluid element were not displeased; they sucked up into their own bodies what fell down from above. That was the fructifying process at that time. That was the only way in which these creatures which had originated there could continue to live. In those ages there was no definite coming forth of one animal from another, as we have now. One might say that actually these creatures lived a long time; they kept renewing themselves. One could call it a sort of world-moulting; the animals down below kept rejuvenating themselves again and again.

On the other hand, to the creatures above came what was developed by those below and this again was a fructification. Reproduction was at that time of a very different nature; it went on in the whole earth-body. The upper world fructified the lower, the lower world fructified the upper. The whole earth-body was alive. One could say that the creatures below and the creatures above were like maggots in a body-where the whole body is alive and the maggots in it are alive too. It was one life, and the various beings lived in a completely living body.

But later something occurred of very special importance. The condition I have described could have gone on for a long time; all could have remained as it was without becoming our present earth. The heavy, clumsy creatures could have continued to inhabit the living earth together with the creatures able to live in the air. But one day something happened. It happened that one day from this living earth, let me say, a young one, an offspring, was formed and went out into cosmic space. It came about in this way: a small protuberance developed, which wore away (see drawing) and at last split off. And a body was now out in the universe which had, instead of the earlier conditions, the surrounding air inside and the thick fluid outside. Thus an inverted body was separated off. Whereas the Moon-earth remained with thick fluid for its inner nucleus and thickish air outside, a body split off which now had the thicker substance outside and the thinner inside. And if one investigates the matter without prejudice, in honest research, one can recognize in this body the present moon. Today just as one can find sodium in the air, one can also learn the exact constituents of the moon, and so one can know that the moon was once in the earth. What circles round us out there was formerly within the earth, then separated off and went out into the cosmos.

With this a complete change took place, not only in what separated itself off but also in the earth itself. Above all, the earth lost certain substances, and for the first time the mineral element could be formed in the earth. If the moon-substances had remained in the earth, minerals could never have been formed, and there would always have been a state of moving fluid. The departure of the moon brought death for the first time to the earth and with it the dead mineral kingdom. But with this came also the possibility for the present plants, present animals and man in his present form to develop.

We can say, therefore, that out of the Old Moon arose the present earth together with the mineral kingdom. And now all forms had to alter. For with the departure of the moon the air became less sulphurous, approaching nearer to the present condition, and what had been dissolved in the fluid was now thrown out, forming mountain-like masses. The water grew more and more like our present water. On the other hand the moon, which has around it what we have in the interior of the earth, produced a thickish, horny mass on the outside. This is what we see when we look up. It is not like our mineral kingdom, but it is as if our mineral kingdom had become horn-like and turned into glass. It is extraordinarily hard, harder than anything horn-like that we have on earth, but it is not quite mineral. Hence the peculiar shape of the moon mountains; they actually all look like horns that have been fastened on. They are formed in such a way that one can even perceive what had been organic in them, what had once been a part of life.

Beginning with the separation of the moon, our present minerals were gradually deposited from the former dense fluid. Particularly active was a substance that in those ancient times existed in great amounts and consisted of silica and oxygen—we call it silicic acid. One has the idea that an acid must be fluid, because that is the form in which it is used today. But the acid which I mean here and which is a genuine acid is extremely hard and firm. It is, in fact, quartz! The quartz which you find in the high mountains is silicic acid. And when it is whitish and like glass it is pure silicic acid. If it contains other substances you get the quartz—or flint—that looks violet, and so on. That comes from the substances contained in it.

But the quartz which is so hard today that you can't scratch it with a knife, and if you hit your head on it, it would make a real hole in your head—this same quartz was dissolved in those ancient times, either in the thick fluid or in the finer surroundings of dense air. In addition to the sulphur there was an immense amount of dissolved quartz in the thick air around the earth. You can get an idea of the strong influence this dissolved silicic acid had at that time if you reflect on the composition of the earth today just here where we live. Of course you can say: There must be a great deal of oxygen, because we need it for breathing. Yes, there is a good deal of oxygen: 28 to 29% of the whole mass of the earth. But you must count everything. Oxygen is in the air and in many solid substances on the earth too; it is in the plants and animals. And if you put all this together it is 28% of the whole.

But silica, which when united with oxygen in the quartz gives silicic acid, is 48 to 49%! Think what that means: half of all that surrounds us and that we need, almost half of that is silica! When everything was fluid, when the air was almost fluid before it thickened—yes, then this silica played an enormous role, it was very important in that original condition. Nowadays these things are not understood rightly because concerning man's finer organization, people no longer have the right idea. They think today in a casual, crude way: Well, we're humans and we have to breathe. We breathe oxygen in and we breathe carbon dioxide out. We can't live if we don't breathe like this. But silica is still always contained in the air we inhale, genuine silica, tiny quantities of silica. Plenty is available, for 48 to 49% of our surroundings are made up of silica.

When we breathe, the oxygen goes down to the metabolism and unites with carbon, but at the same time it also goes up to the senses and the brain, to the nervous system: it goes everywhere. There it unites with the silica and forms silicic acid in us. If we look at a human being we see he has lungs and is inhaling air, that means, he is taking in oxygen. Below, the oxygen unites with carbon and forms carbon dioxide which he then exhales. But above, the silica is united in us with the oxygen and goes up into our head, as silicic acid—however, it does not become as solid up there as quartz. That, of course, would be a bad business if pure quartz crystals showed up inside your head—then instead of hair you would have quartz crystals, which perhaps would be quite beautiful and amusing! Still, that is not entirely fantasy—for there is a good deal of silicic acid in our hair, only it is still fluid, not crystallized. In fact, not only hair but practically everything in the nerves and senses contains silicic acid.

One discovers this when one first gets to know the beneficial, healing effects of silicic acid; it is tremendously helpful as a remedy. You must realize that the food received through the mouth into the stomach must pass through all manner of intermediate things before it comes up into the head, the eye, the ear, and so forth. That is a long way for the nourishment to go, and it needs helping forces to enable it to come up at all. It might be—in fact, it happens often—that a person has not enough helping forces and the foods do not work up properly into the head; then one must prescribe silicic acid which assists the nourishment to rise to the head and the senses. As soon as one sees that a patient is normal as regards stomach and intestines, but that the digestion does not go all the way to the sense organs, the head, or the skin, one must administer a silicic acid preparation as remedy. There one sees, in fact, what a very great role silicic acid still plays today in the human organism.

In that ancient condition of the earth, the silicic acid was not yet inhaled but was absorbed. The bird-like creatures in particular took it in. They absorbed it as they absorbed the sulphur, with the consequence that they became almost entirely sense organs. Just as we have silicic acid to thank for our sense organs, so at that time the earth as a whole owed its bird-like species to the working of the silicic acid that was present everywhere. Since, however, this did not come in the same way to those other creatures with the clumsy limbs, since the silicic acid reached those creatures less as they glided along in the dense fluid, they became in the main stomach- and digestion-creatures. There above in those days were terribly nervous creatures, aware of everything with a fine nervous sensitivity. On the other hand, those below in the thick fluid were of immense sagacity, but also of immense phlegmatism. They felt nothing of it; they were mere feeding-creatures, were really only an abdomen with clumsy limbs. The birds above were finely organized, were almost entirely sense organs. And indeed they were sense organs for the earth itself, so that it was not only filled with life but it perceived everything through these sense organs that were in the air, the fore-runners of our birds.

I tell you all this so that you may see how different everything once looked on the earth. All that was dissolved at that time became deposits later in the solid mineral mountains, the rock masses, and formed a kind of bony scaffolding. Only then was it possible for man and animal to form solid bones. For when externally the bony framework of the earth was formed, then bones began to form also inside the higher animals and man. What I have spoken of before was not yet firm, hard bone as we have today, but flexible, horn-like cartilage as it has still remained in the fish. All these things have in a certain way remained behind and atrophied, for in the earlier ages which I have described the life-conditions for them were there, but today the necessary life-conditions are no longer present.

We can say, therefore: In our modern birds we have the successors of the bird-like species which existed above in the dense air full of sulphur and silicic acid but now transformed and adapted to the present air. And in the amphibians of today, the crawling creatures, in the frogs and toads, but also in the chameleon, the snake, and so forth, we have the successors of the creatures that were swimming at that time in the dense fluid. The higher mammals and man in his present form came later.

Now this makes an apparent contradiction: I said to you last time that man was there first. But he lived in the warmth purely as soul and spirit; he was indeed already present in all that I have described, but not as a physical being. He was there in a very fine body in which he could support himself equally in the air and in the dense fluid. And neither he nor the higher mammals were visible as yet; only the heavy creatures and the bird-like air-creatures were visible. That is what must be distinguished when one says that man was already there. He was first of all, before even the air was there, but he was invisible, and he was still in an invisible state when the earth looked as I have now described. The moon had first to separate from the earth, then man could deposit mineral elements in himself, could form a mineral bony system, could develop such substances as protein, and so forth, in his muscles. At that time such substances did not as yet exist. Nevertheless, man has completely preserved in his present corporeal nature the legacy of those earlier times.

For the human being cannot now come into existence without the moon influence, coming now only from outside. Reproduction is connected with the moon, though no longer directly. It can therefore be seen that what is connected with reproduction—the woman's monthly periods—take their course in the same rhythmical periods as the phases of the moon, only they no longer coincide; they have freed themselves. But the moon influence has remained active in human reproduction.

We have found reproduction accomplished between the beings of the dense air and those of the dense fluid, between the bird-like race and the ancient giant amphibians. They mutually fructified one another because the moon was still within the earth. As soon as the moon was outside, fructification had to come from outside, because the fructifying principle lies in the moon.

We will continue from this point on Saturday³ at nine o'clock—if we can have that hour. The question put by Herr Dollinger is one that must be answered in detail, and if you have patience you will see how present-day life emerges from all the gradual preparatory conditions. The whole subject is indeed difficult to understand. But I believe one can understand if one looks at things in the way we have been looking.

• 3. This lecture was postponed to Monday, July 7th